One Nation Under Whom?!?!

The very founding concept of the United States of America was the idea that God is the creator, that God has given us certain rights or freedoms and that the government was established in order to protect these God given rights. The difference between other forms of government and that of the USA is that in other countries the government gives right and takes them away (this is specially true of atheistic governments such as communism) while in the USA, God gives them and the government protects them.

Originally, the Pledge of Allegiance stated, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This pledge could all too easily be misunderstood as stating that the republic, the nation, is supreme as in communist countries. That would be a misrepresentation of what the USA is. The insertion of the phrase "under God" ensures that it is clearly understood that the USA and its government exists to protect the freedoms, the rights, which God has bestowed upon us all.

Michael Newdow, who is an atheist, does not want his daughter to be forced to recite the words "under God" (no one is ever forced to do this) although his daughter does not mind at all because she and her mother are Christians. Michael Newdow is fighting the mother in court over custody of their daughter and so it appears that, at least partly, he is doing this to get back at her. This seems to be why he is keeping his daughter out of the media since she would say that she not only does not mind but she is glad to state "under God". Michael Newdow might conduct an experiment, he could go to Palestine and start protesting that the government should not push Allah, he would instantly appreciate his God given freedoms in America. The very reason that he (and his supporters) are allowed to complain is that they live in a country that is Under God. But isn't Palestine also under God? This goes to show that these gods are not the same.

Locally, Tim McGivern wrote an editorial entitled "The Real Meaning of 'Under God.'"1The problem is that he never got around to the actual real meaning. He claims that the real meaning is that out kids would question what they are being taught and that this would spark debate, this misses the point entirely. Certainly we should not discourage "freethinking" because for example, in science class our children are not educated but rather, indoctrinated. They are not taught different theories and informed of the problems in each. Instead, they are taught one theory as true and if they question it they must be a religious blind faithed ignoramus. However, how far will this be allowed to go? What if a parent does not want their child to be taught the theory of atheistic-evolution in public school will that parent's rights be upheld by the ACLU or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Certainly not!

Tim McGivern stated that if our children hear "under God" in public school they will wonder why the schools are violating the separation of church and state. On the contrary, they will learn a lesson in social studies. They will remember that America is based on the idea of being under God and that virtually every founding document that makes this country what it is mentions God as the giver of life and freedom (for some examples see below under "Our Godly Heritage").
Tim McGivern also claims that President Bush violate the separation of church and state at his inauguration by having someone pray in the name of Jesus. Did he violate the separation of church and state? No, it was in fact a perfect example of constitutional separation. On the one hand, President Bush exercised his right to freedom of religion by having prayers said in accord to his religious beliefs. On the other hand, he did not impose Christianity upon the nation (was anyone concerned that if Joseph Lieberman became Vice President we would all have to keep kosher?). Did someone sue Abraham Lincoln for his Second Inaugural Address in March 4, 1865? After all, he referred to the Bible and to God once as "The Almighty" once as "the Lord" and six times as God.

Tim McGivern claimed that in doing this President Bush offended "8 million Muslims in the U.S., not to mention Libertarians, atheists, agnostics, Hindus and Buddhists, among others." If this is true, why is it so? For example, when a Christian hears a Muslim praise Allah, Buddhist praise Buddha, an atheist praise meaningless random chance, etc. the Christian response is to be that of love. Surely our hearts would break for them but while we cannot respect their beliefs we must respect their right to believe as they do because God has given us free will. Since President Bush has the right to practice his religion no one should be surprised or offended when he does so (without imposing it upon the nation). Therefore, when Muslims, Libertarians, atheists, agnostics, Hindus and Buddhists hear the president of the USA praising Jesus they aught to be thankful for a display of the same sort of religious freedom (or lack thereof) which they themselves enjoy.

It seems that people would be offended because our society runs on emotions. If you "feel" offended then someone must be offending you and you are no longer responsible with dealing with your emotions in a rational manner. The offender must be censored. This causes a disinterest in intellectualization, rational thinking, philosophizing, drawing our ideas to their logical conclusion or basing our ideas on facts. Our societal motto seems to be "I feel therefore, I am."

Liberalism and the "Separation of Church and State":
Liberalism seems to function on emotionalism and one-liners. By "liberalism" we are not referring to any specific political party but to liberalism in general. By one-liners we mean that whenever liberalism is confronted by an issue its practitioners react in an emotional manner and employ one-liners such as; if the issue is tax cuts the line is "it's tax cuts for the rich." If the issue is abortion the line is "her body, her choice." If the issue is war the line is "it's a war for oil." And if the issue is faith and politics the line is "separation of church and state."

Today people know separation of church and state but where this came from, where is it found, what did and does it mean? Who knows? According to our modern pop-culture manner of anti-thought, little things like facts and history are irrelevant just as long as we can get those religious do-gooders to let us sin in peace. The idea of separation of church and state, which has become the liberal mantra, the ultimate commandment, is not found in the constitution or any founding document of this country. It comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in response to a rumor the Baptists had heard that the Congregationalist denomination would run the nation. In January 1, 1802 Thomas Jefferson insured them by writing, "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It seems like the Amendment is stating that Congress would not be imposing a particular religion upon the nation and that it would also not oppress religious activity (except in the case of immorality such as polygamy). What we can learn about the historical context i.e., what was the First Amendment understood to mean at the time of its writing and first applications?
The First Amendment was discussed in length and recorded in the U.S. Congressional Records June 7-Sep. 25, 1789, which proves that the intent of the Amendment was to keep one single Christian denomination from running the nation.
The historical context can also be seen in court cases from the time. An example is the 1799 case Runkel v. Winemiller, which states, "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denomination of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Historical context also demonstrates that during his presidency Thomas Jefferson attended the largest Baptist church of the day that met in the House of Representatives.
We also learn that shortly after Congress passed the First Amendment in 1789, Congress declared a national day of prayer.
Examples abound but what is more important to keep in mind is the bottom line, which is that the Founding Father came from a country in which there existed The Church of England. This sort of government run church and church run government is exactly what they were attempting to avoid. The concept a Church of the USA is the "establishment of religion" which they sought to avoid.

Some Point to Ponder:
If we remove "under God" it must be replaced by something. This is not to say that we must find words that will be printed it its place but that the concept itself will be replaced. If we take God out of our country we destroy our government. Therefore, we argue that atheism is a religion. How so? A religion may be defined as a belief system in which adherents agree to follow certain commandments or morals they accept a certain world-view. For theistic religions this come from a god. For atheists the individual is their own god. This is because the individual atheist decides what is wrong and right, good and evil, true and false, they place themselves in the place of ultimate, absolute, infallible authority. Their priests and prophets are various scientists and psychologists, their holy books are textbooks and their mythologies (atheistic evolution) include creatures that are half one species and half another just like a Centaur, Minotaur or Griffin. Their highest power is utterly meaningless random chance and their faith is constantly changing because science is constantly changing. Moreover, their religion is so exclusive and they are so zealous that they oppose all with whom they disagree.

Heywood Brown stated, "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
Charles M. Houser stated, "Atheism never composed a symphony. Never painted a masterpiece. Never dispelled a fear. Never healed a disease. Never gave peace of mind. Never dried a tear. Never established a philanthropy. Never gave an intelligent answer to the vast mystery of the universe. Never give meaning to man's life on earth. Never built a just and peaceful world. Never built a great and enduring civilization."2

Atheism is the height of pessimism. It offers nothing to live for but the fleeting moment. It offers no morals but relativism or situational ethics, in other words, there is no real right and wrong and so we make it up as we go along, as it is convenient for us. It explains all life and the whole universe as a meaningless accident. It teaches that humans are nothing but glorified animals. It offers no justice but that which is had by the authority of finite, temporal courts. It offers no meaning for yesterday, no comfort for today and no hope for tomorrow. Then we wonder why people act like animals with no morals, no respect for person and no regard for God.

As a religion, atheism is just as prone to proselytizing as any other. Consider John Lennon's lyrics to the song Imagine, "Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky…And no religion too" and here is the punch line, "You may say I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us, And the world will be as one." According to this world-view the world will be as one when we all forsake concepts such as heaven, hell, religion, when we give up our beliefs and accept theirs.

To be fair please note carefully that there are at least two basic kinds of atheists. Firstly, those who are militantly against any and all religion and see religious people as weak and delusional. Secondly those who believe that as long as a person is good then it does not matter what they believe (although defining good without God is a relativistic nightmare).

On the TV show "The Pulse" (7-12-02) Michael Newdow told Bill O'Reily that he believes that atheism is a religion. Therefore, the bottom line is that he wants to remove "under God" and replace it with nothing. He wants to remove theism from the schools and replace it with atheism. "Nothing" is the god of atheism, why should our children be forced to praise this god? In 1977 in the court cases Theriault v. Silber and Malnak v. Yogi ruled that atheism is a religion. Also note that Buddhism has been a religion for some 2,500 years and it is an atheistic system of belief.

Michael Newdow has stated that he has gotten many threatening phone calls, it is shockingly shameful to think that people who consider themselves godly (whether Christian or not) are calling this poor lost soul and threatening him. The proper response is to love him pray for him and debate him. Consider how lost he and those like him must be to be so strongly convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit that even hearing the generic word God sends them running to the court rooms in a fit of rage.

This issue has been used as an excuse for Christian bashing. In the founding documents of this country God is mentioned. Whatever they meant by this generic term in today's popular culture generic terms should be more welcome than ever. Since the overwhelming majority of our country's population (as well as that of the whole world) are theists we are each free to subjectively define "God" as we wish. This means that the grand majority of our country's population should be quite pleased with daring to let God into public view and not allowing the overwhelming minority of the population to have more say than the majority. Even though our government endorses no particular religion this has not stopped anti-Christians from using this issue as an excuse to bash everything Christian from individuals to the Bible. You must understand that in our society it is only politically correct to bash Christians (plus Anglos and males in general) anyone else is off limits (if you are an Anglo Christian male you are in big trouble). What we have here is clear proof that people are perfectly willing to selfishly enjoy the freedoms that a government based on Judeo-Christian ethics has produced, but that they are also endangering our way of life by promoting every kind of extreme liberalism. On The Pulse Michael Newdow took his shots at Christianity until Bill O’Reily pointed it out, which is when Michael Newdow ventured to throw Judaism and Islam into the mix of intolerables.

Our government's head representative, head leader, is one person; the President. This individual will always be motivated by a world-view that motivates their beliefs. There are no exceptions to this fact. A Christian President will be motivated by the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. A Jewish President by the Jewish Scriptures. A Buddhist President by the Buddhist Suttas. Accordingly, an atheist President will be motivated by his or her own beliefs; the atheistic religion. Those in power over us will act according to their beliefs no matter what they are or how they arrived at them. The question is, "Whom do we want as our leaders and what basis do we want for our country." Do we want people who hold to the highest moral standards and believe that there is a greater power over and beyond themselves? Or do we want leaders who believe in relative morals, no absolute truth (except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths), the changing uncertainty of atheistic-evolutionary-science and that outside of themselves there are no higher power and therefore, no ultimate accountability?

Our Godly Heritage:
Mayflower Compact:

"We…having undertaken a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these present, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic…"

Declaration of Independence:

"…to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them…for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…"

George Washington: Speech to Delaware Chiefs, May 12, 1779:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention."

George Washington: From a circular letter to the Governors of the States on disbanding the army, Headquarters, Newburgh, June 8, 1783:

"I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection…that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristic of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation."

George Washington: Address to Congress, Dec. 23, 1783:

"I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest county to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping."

Thomas Jefferson: An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, passed in the Assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786:

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do."

Abraham Lincoln: Address Delivered at the Dedication of the Cemetery at Gettysburg, Nov. 19, 1863:

"we here highly resolve that these dead [due to the Civil War] shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Samuel Adams stated, "Revelation assures us that righteousness exalteth a nation."3

Many oaths of office as well as the oath of citizenship state, "I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

There are entire book written on the issue of the faith of the Founding Fathers of the USA, the quotes could be multiplied by the hundreds. Do not let the phrase separation of church and state stop you from claiming what is your Godly American heritage.

Perhaps some day a Neo-Declaration of Independence will be written and include these words:

"…We hold these relative preferences to be self-evident, that all non-gender specific personages evolve equally, that they are endowed by random chance with certain unalienable rights, that among these are abortion, liberalism and the pursuit of hedonism. That to invent these rights, governments are instituted among aforementioned personages…"

1. 1. Tim McGivern, "The Real Meaning of 'Under God,'" Alibi, Vol. 11, No. 27 (July 4-10, 2002), p. 13
2. 2. Tan, P. L. (1996, c1979). Encyclopedia of 7700 illustrations : [a treasury of illustrations, anecdotes, facts and quotations for pastors, teachers and Christian workers]. Garland TX: Bible Communications. "#339 Epigram On Atheism (Answered)"
3. 3. Norman Cousins, "In God We Trust" The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958), p. 344