1

We agree in principle on much of this. I've always felt that rather than advancing or elevating religion, generic phrases such as "under God" and "In God We Trust" serve to cheapen religion, politicizing it. As such, it confuses me why so many self-identified Christians are so concerned with keeping something that essentially undermines their faith.

In yet another sign of the pending apocalypse, I have linked to this post at Lean Left, and stated that I agree with you in principle. Somewhere, an angel's blowing a horn...

2

The Pledge of Allegiance is built on a shaky foundation. America is not "one nation," we are several. The Dixie, Yankeeland, the Midwest and the West coast and Hawaii are not culturally homogenous, America is 4-5 English-speaking nations living under one republic. I see no conflict in being both an American patriot and a quasi-Southern nationalist. My nation is the South, my country is the U.S.

Secular government is the ideal for a christian people because it takes out the ambiguity of religion from justice. It allows the Church to maintain its authority in the spiritual relm while keeping the Church from itself becoming a force of oppression.

Do you need a reason based on the Bible to oppose murder? I don't. I see no conflict between the commandment and the Commonwealth (of Virginia) Legal Code. I have my reason which is natural law based in part on the Bible, others have theirs. Works just fine to me.

The conflict between secular government and religion is largely the result of the rise of socialism and conservatism, as predicted by FA Hayek. It's not secular government in general that is bad for religion, it is any form of unlimited government that is harmful.

The best proposal for a new pledge I've ever seen, one that pledges our loyalty to the constitution and not a symbol of the government, is:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic that it established. One nation, out of many peoples (E pluribus, unum almost) with liberty and justice for all."

Of course I would have it say, One country, but that's fine I guess.

3

Mike:

I agree with most of what you're saying, except for the South as a Nation part. Just because you identify with a particular region doesn't somehow elevate that region to "nation" status. At least not with respect to any meaning I associate with "nation." My meanings for "nation" all include some sort of formal heirarchical structure, of which the South and Midwest have none. They may have some affinities not shared with other regions, but these are all very informal.

The Pledge is pretty silly, though, and although a Constitutional pledge would better, it would still be silly. Any pledge given by rote isn't terribly meaningful in the first place. It must be given with conviction and without compulsion to even be meaningful.

4

One thing I take away, then, is this: From a Christian perspective, if people aren't thinking of the true God when saying the pledge, the phrase "under God" doesn't do them or our nation any good.

In fact, if there were no Christians left in the USA, saying "under God" would be 100% idolatry.

But I would point out a small benefit: If a child does think of the true God when saying the pledge, the phrase can remind her, near the beginning of the school day, of His presence. It can imply to her that our country acknowledges and respects him. And in a small way, by that small encouragement, it can make that acknowledgment and respect a little truer.

So, although I appreciate being reminded how little the phrase means, all in all I'd rather keep it.

The same type of reasoning probably led Michael Newdow, the atheist, to bring the lawsuit against "under God" in the pledge.

An interesting observation then: Michael Newdow may be thinking of the true God -- at least in a negative sense -- when he hears the little phrase.

5

Hey Ed,

But I would point out a small benefit: If a child does think of the true God when saying the pledge, the phrase can remind her, near the beginning of the school day, of His presence. It can imply to her that our country acknowledges and respects him. And in a small way, by that small encouragement, it can make that acknowledgment and respect a little truer.

Isn't this reasoning bodering on the Straussian idea of the "noble lie?" We are saying that our country doesn't acknowledge or repect the "one true God" but we should pretend it does for the benefit of the children. Wouldn't it be better if the child were to acknowledge God in prayer rather than after pledging their allegiance to a symbol on our nation?

6

If it's "merely ceremonial deism," then every child who says it is taking God's name in vain.

I say, get rid of it---and not just "under God," but the whole Pledge. What on earth makes sense about making children pledge allegiance to a *flag?*

I suggest an alternative:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the principles for which it stands: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all."

7

Bravo erin.

8

Historically, the Founders understood this to be a Republic of several States, under God. That as a political statement, not one of denominational preference.

As the Declaration of Independence says (as usual, plagiarizing from _Lex, Rex_) we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The nation or civil governance is not Sovereign, God is. The civil governance is not the ultimate authority, but is also under authority, whether or not rebellious.

So the Pledge section on under God is a political statement of Who the sovereign of these united States is.

To remove it would be to go into official rebellion against the Sovereign, and to embrace facism, where all is in the State, nothing is outside the State, and all is for the State.

9

Steve,

So the Pledge section on under God is a political statement of Who the sovereign of these united States is.

Except that "under God" doesn't really tell us who the Sovereign is. As is being pointed out, it's an ambiguous concept of deity that's held out as a compromise to all people of faith.

That being said, I agree that the very concept of an authority to which the State is answerable is a crucial one and, as far as the Pledge goes, needs to be stated.

I confess, however, that this thread has given voice to my hesitancy in whole-heartedly "supporting the Pledge" from the beginning. As far as I've been concerned, it's more about a reaction to people (Newdow, ACLU, etc.) who insist on actively stripping the culture of these references.

10

Joe,

Isn't this reasoning bodering on the Straussian idea of the "noble lie?" We are saying that our country doesn't acknowledge or repect the "one true God" but we should pretend it does for the benefit of the children. Wouldn't it be better if the child were to acknowledge God in prayer rather than after pledging their allegiance to a symbol on our nation?

The effect I was talking about with the child was so small that it's not worth insisting on. Of course, prayer is infinitely better than the Pledge of Allegiance.

Maybe my concern is this: What are the practical consequences of withdrawing from the field on these civil religion matters? What lessons will be drawn from this abandonment by people who don't understand or don't care about Rousseau? The mass of people on both sides (even supposed "intellectuals" like judges and professors) are likely to think that the anti-Christ forces have won a great victory; that laws can no longer take traditional morality into account; that chaplains aren't allowed in the military; that even private organizations can't make decisions based on morality -- because that is discriminatory and because our government has decided that God doesn't matter.

Is civil religion merely idolatry, or is it a pivotal position on the battlefield?

Taking a principled position doesn't mean that we have taken a defensible position. I mean "defensible" from a practical, not an intellectual, point of view. We can't expect radicals, if people perceive them to have the high ground, to respect our private religion and private morality. They will sue to force all churches and private organizations to bow down to their gods.

I'm sorry this post is so long, and I don't expect you to answer it. In a way you already have by saying, "Our God is a jealous God and is unlikely to look favorably upon idolatry even when it is put to good service."

My thoughts here are not a final position. Maybe it is way past time to admit that we are captives in Babylon, and to get ready for them to open the oven door.

11

Ed,

Is civil religion merely idolatry, or is it a pivotal position on the battlefield?

Don't get me wrong. I think we need to stand firm on allowing religion into the "naked public square." But we should do so defending our real religious beliefs rather than a toothless imitation.

I also disagree with the assesment that Christians are captives in Babylon since we having willingly put ourselves in this position. Heck, we've created this "Babylon."

We also, in my opinion, should give up this idea that we need to "Christianize" America. When we do so we lose our ability to be a prophetic witness and instead of fighting for what matters we get bogged down in "symbolic" gestures such as defending the Pledge.

12

Panther, I think people would have to -try- to be confused about Who "under God" was speaking of. Just as the Nine Sitters claim to be confused by the term "religion" in the Constitution, which when written meant "Christianity", not Islam or Hinduism, etc.

Joe,
To give up on trying to transform the culture and the polis would be disobedience to God, IMO.

13

Steve:
The nation or civil governance is not Sovereign, God is. The civil governance is not the ultimate authority, but is also under authority, whether or not rebellious.

No, the people are sovereign, and in our country at least, are the ultimate authority. Didn't you ever get the whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" spiel in middle-school civics class?

The whole "under God" bit had nothing at all to do with the founders, which is why you have to go to the Declaration of Independence (rather than the Constitution, which actually describes our government) to try to justify it. You also conveniently skip that the Declaration refers to "Nature's God," a Deist term not used by Christians.

As far as I've been concerned, it's more about a reaction to people (Newdow, ACLU, etc.) who insist on actively stripping the culture of these references.

Not the culture, just the government. It's a not-so-subtle and very important difference.

Joe:
We also, in my opinion, should give up this idea that we need to "Christianize" America.

Stop it now, you're scaring me. :)

All:

Just so my position on the subject of religion and the public square is crystal clear: Anybody can pray on their own time, in any way they choose to do so. Any group can likewise voluntary assemble to pray in any way they see fit.

What you cannot do is coerce people to join you (directly or indirectly), and you cannot give the appearance of official endorsement. This means that a government employee or official acting in their official role cannot do these things, and it means that the government cannot sponsor explicitly religious display.

I will staunchly defend the right of any individual or private group to pray and worship in any manner they see fit (barring extremes like sacrifice), but I will just as strongly oppose any effort to use the auspices of government to advance religious causes or to endorse religious causes.

14

Like tgirsh, I am stunned at the degree to which I agree with Joe. Steve is way off the wall with that God as political sovereign stuff. The founding fathers conspicuously avoided reference to a deity in the Constitution, and they certainly devised nothing to insure a diety's will would be done by the government. The founding fathers were wise enough to see that the government should be as neutral toward religion as a machine. It is unfortunate that so many people are trying to undermine the secular vision of Jefferson, Madison, et al.

15

Joe:

I tend to agree with what you're saying (I may have said something simiilar from time to time, perhaps in the context of Judge Moore and his 2.5 ton rock). It does us little good to try to "legislate" a recognition of God, or to compel adherence to a particular faith. What we as Christians should, I think, strive for is not a "Christian nation," but a "nation of Christians," which means that we work to convince others of the truth of the Gospel, not that we force it upon them.

16

Bob Ryan,
If I'm way off the wall, *so were the Reformers and the Founding Fathers* Not to mention Jesus, St. Paul, etc.

Not sure who your 'diety' is. Atkins?

You plainly don't know your history or your civics. I recommend you read up on them. Read the primary documents, like the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, etc.

17

Thomas Jefferson's Secular Vision

Third President of the United States

In writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included these words:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—"
"We therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled appealing our Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our nations—"
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

In a letter to Henry Fry, on June 17, 1804 Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught—"

On March 4, 1805 President Jefferson prayed a National Prayer for Peace:

"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners."

"Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues."

"Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those whome in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of earth."

"In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

On April 21, 1803 Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush:

"My views- - - are the result of a lifetime of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference of all others—"

While he was still President, Thomas Jefferson was also the chairman of the school board for the District of Columbia. He initiated a plan of education that featured the Bible and Isaac Watts' Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs as the main books for teaching students reading skills.

The infamous statement, "Separation of Church and State" was taken out of context from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the Constitution protected their religious freedoms and would not allow any one Christian denomination to be established as the "Government Church". The statement was never part of any early historical American document. Thomas Jefferson would be furiously opposed to the way his words have been taken out of context and misused to brainwash future generations of Americans.

18

Madison's Secular Vision

"We have all been encouraged to feel the guardianship, and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations."

On November 20, 1825 James Madison wrote these words in a letter to Frederick Beasley:

"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and happiness and man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

He is quoted (Richardson, Vol 1, p. 532. July 23, 1813) as saying:

"I do therefore issue this my proclamation, recommending to all who shall piously disposed to unite their hearts and voices in addressing at one and the time their vows and adorations to the Great Parent and Sovereign of the Universe — to render Him thanks for the many blessing He has bestowed on the people of the United States."

In writing to a friend, William Bradford, on November 9, 1772 Madison wrote:

"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our name enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."

In June, 1785 Madison said in Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Asessments:

"Before any man can be considered a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

On Jan. 11, 1788 Madison wrote these words in The Federalist, No. XXXVII:

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection to to perceive in (the ability of the delegates to reach agreement on the Constitution of the United States) a finger of that Almighty Hand, which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief."

19

Northwest Ordinance of 1789

Article III. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

20

Steve:

Your insistence upon selectively quoting their writings either out of context or out of relevance (often both) is stunning.

Jefferson's secular vision:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
[Emphasis Added]>
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Clearly, these quotes confirm Bob Ryan's point that Jefferson believed the government and religion should be completely separate, i.e. a secular government.

And Jefferson may have respected Jesus, but he was by no means Christian:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
- Thomas Jefferson letter to William Short

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Sorry, no Christian founder here.

What about Madison? Surely he wanted the US to be a Christian nation, right?

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Oops. Just because some of the founders were themselves Christians doesn't mean that they didn't want a secular nation. Clearly, they did. Merely count the number of references to God, Jesus, Christ, and Christianity in the constitution (zero) and see for yourself. This lack of Christian references wasn't some oversight -- it was deliberate.

But hey, nice try.

21

Thanks, tgirsch, for saving me the trouble of defending my knowledge of civics and history to Steve, for whom insults occasionally substitute for argument. I'm sure I could teach him a great deal about both, but there is no need since you have extended a finger to my relief. Jefferson, who you think would be angry at me, wrote these words to his friend, John Adams, shortly before their deaths: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (Jefferson's Works, Vol.iv, p. 365) Speaking of brainwashing, Steve, do you really think a man who wrote these words would be angered at secularists for opposing efforts to Christianize government? You should acknowledge the possibility that I, a complete stranger to you, have read a great deal more than you think. Your raw tone indicates to me that you are perhaps twenty years my junior, and you may have some catching up to do.

22

T.

You quote Jefferson's "separation of Church and state" letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, but the context is missing.

Let me quote D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe:

"His [Jefferson's] purpose in this 1802 letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. Actually, he took the language from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America who had settled Rhode Island, a colony known for its freedom of religion and conscience. Reverend Williams had talked about a wall being erected around the garden of the church to protect the right of conscience. Jefferson took that same phrase and said that this wall protected the church, not against hostile Indians or worldly things, but against the federal government.

Jefferson closed his letter to the Baptists by "asking them to pray for him, while he agrees to pray for them . . . ."

So the phrase "wall of separation between Church and state" was misapplied by the Supreme Court. In fact, it's strange that the court referenced Jefferson at all, since he didn't write or sign the U.S. Constitution.

Kennedy and Newcombe note that two days after Jefferson wrote his letter to the Baptists . . .

. . . Thomas Jefferson went to church . . . .

. . . But not just any church. He went to the largest church in America at the time.

Every week, Christian worship services were held in the chambers of the House of Representatives in Washington. The Capitol building took a long time to be completed; the cornerstone was laid in 1793, and the building was revised for the next half a century and beyond. Meanwhile, worship services were held on Sundays at the same place congressmen met on Mondays. (Decades later, worship services continued in the completed building in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol . . . .)

So each week for seven years, the rest of his presidency, Thomas Jefferson sat in the front row. He wasn't pleased with the music, so he ordered the marine band to come to church on Sunday. They were paid out of the federal treasury to support the singing of hymns and psalms in the church. How is that for "separation of church and state" Jefferson-style?

Kennedy and Newcombe note that the Treasury Department and the Supreme Court were also used for Christian worship every Sabbath Day.

Jefferson's phrase about the wall of separation has been twisted and misapplied in ways that do not reflect his views.

23

Ed:

Joining in on the out-of-context/out-of-relevance game, eh? (Although you're just following Kennedy's example, I suppose.) At no point did I ever suggest that Jefferson wasn't a spiritual man, which is all your citations show. In context, Jefferson's "wall of separation" quote indicates that the wall is there as much for the protection of the church as it is for the protection of the state. The other quotations I cited give even more context, and show that Jefferson was not ambiguous in his writings concerning that separation.

You have done absolutely nothing to address Jefferson's remarks that are highly critical of Christianity (yet I'm supposed to believe he's a Christian?) nor do you address his non-Danbury statements concerning separation, nor do you address our godless Constitution.

No, your sole argument appears to be that according to some guy who has a lot of money invested in establishing Christianity says that Jefferson went to church, and possibly paid the band with tax dollars.

I can see why you might consider all of Jefferson's writings to the contrary are thereby rendered irrelevant.

24

Ed and Steve:

Perhaps you should take this quiz to see how much you know about church/state separation.

I got 20 out of 21 (D'oh! Not quite perfect!)

25

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37901

26

tgirsch: Tok the quiz; also got 20. I attributed a quote to Falwell in error. I'm not upset about it, though; I didn't miss by much. ;-)
Steve: Read the article. It is as weak as well water. The suggestion that "under God" in the Pledge prevents tyranny of the state is ludicrous. We got along fine for 60 years or so without it, and a hundred years before that with no Pledge at all. What we have now is a public prayer I cannot participate in. My children and I are ostracized for remaining seated during the Pledge. I would like to participate in an affirmation of loyalty to my country, but I may not do so without falsely affirming that I share the belief in the Judeo-Christian god.

27

Rob:

I missed the one about the declaration of Christmas as a national holiday.

28

T.

I missed looking at this post for a few days. I don't even know if you'll be reading this thread again, but here goes...

I find the Founders' willingness to involve the church with the state to be significant evidence about how they intended the First Amendment to be interpreted -- and I believe most other people would feel the same. I can't force you to view things the same way, of course. But I would note that either Jefferson's actions as president are consistent with his beliefs about the First Amendment, or they are inconsistent. If his actions are consistent with his beliefs -- well, then he's a hostile witness for your side, isn't he? If his actions are inconsistent with his beliefs, that may be used to impeach his integrity, I guess.

I didn't address Jefferson's religious beliefs because it is his beliefs about the First Amendment that concern me. (My understanding is that he lost his faith sometime after his youth -- after living in France, naturally.)

I was really only providing more perspective on Jefferson's relationship with the First Amendment. I didn't mean to imply that I was proving he was a Christian. Sorry if it came across that way.

No, your sole argument appears to be that according to some guy [Rev. Kennedy] who has a lot of money invested in establishing Christianity says that Jefferson went to church, and possibly paid the band with tax dollars.

I do assume that Kennedy has his facts straight. Other than that, Kennedy's position as a minister has no bearing on my point.

29

Ed:

Believe it or not, I'm still checking. Frankly, I appeal to the writings of the founders not to somehow "prove" that what they wanted was total separation. I do it only to disprove the frequently-made-by-Christians claim that the founders intended to form this nation as a Christian nation. Clearly, though their views on the amount of intermingling varied, they did not intend for us to be a Christian nation. That's my sole point there.

Frankly, the intent of the framers doesn't concern me as much as you might think. What concerns me is whether or not separation is a good idea. I (as a non-Christian) believe it is, and at least in this case, so does Joe (an evangelical).

Religiosity in the United States is higher than in any other industrialized nation, as is church attendance. I believe this is precisely because of (and not in spite of) the separation of church and state. And you can't have a "one-sided wall," as Robertson and others have argued for.

The church and the state are both tremendously benefitted by the total separation of church from state. Every attempt to mix them that I have encountered has come with ulterior (and decidedly non-spiritual) motives. Why cheapen religion by politicizing it, anyway?

30

I think that they shouldnt take the words under god out of the pledge. If u dont want to say them then dont, but everyday at my school we all stand up in our homerooms to say the pledge of allegiance. Everyone says it and not a sole leaves out under god,because we have been raised to show respect to our country and to respect all the military personal that has served our country and lost their life for our country. That is what the pledge of allegiance means to the staff and students in my school. If u remove the words under god u might as well remove the words in god we trust on all the money, but yet u have no problem spending money with the words on it