www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pledge of Allegiance

Such a statement confuses apples and oranges. The various laws discriminating against various religious groups were eventually dropped because the people understood what the founding fathers actually meant in the First Amendment. The states eventually responded to it correctly. It was not until the middle of the last century that the current attack on people of faith under the guise of �separation of church and state� started.

The founding fathers of our country were wise to make sure that no particular religious group could ever become the official state religion. They were wiser still to recognize that a society needs to be built upon unchanging, fundamental principals and chose Judeo-Christian morality as expressed through Common Law. There are those in our society who seek, under the guise of protecting religious freedom, to remove the fundamental moral and ethical building blocks of our society and replace them with nothing but moral relativism. The problem with moral relativism is that there are no ultimate criteria for what is right and what is wrong and any society that attempts to build upon it will find that such a foundation quickly turns to sand. The recent court decision prohibiting the use of the words �under God� is merely another step towards such moral relativism.

Our current society is unwise in its ongoing creation of a higher, more impenetrable wall which more and more restricts the free expression of faith in public. We have created a society in which freedom of religion has been transformed into freedom from religion. We are teaching our children that the teachings of Christ belong only in their hearts but must never be the basis of their public life or be spoken aloud lest their Christianity offend someone.

All of this is connected.

This entire topic is one of tough issues, fine distictions, and confliction legal theories of which wise minds have come to both conclusions.

I think actually in the past ten years, we have seen a better balance and appreciation for nunace. I believe the Courts were correct in ruling that regular and complusary prayer was not proper for public schools. I think recently they have shown more openness to the contitutional allowance of school vouchers (though a third of the states still have 19 century laws against vouchers).

The Equal Access Act was an important step forward saying that if students are allowed to organize student clubs, schools cannot discriminate on the types of club students choose -- including Bible study or faith oriented.

I think it is very generous to say "The various laws discriminating against various religious groups were eventually dropped because the people understood what the founding fathers actually meant in the First Amendment," if one were to take that literally -- i.e. that Jefferson and Madison really and consciously meant the relationship that were found to be unconstitutional to be so. All evidence is to the contrary.

Again, the issue is complex and not appropriate for easy sloganerring.

Axios

This idea of course goes back to Jefferson. Certainly not all of the founding fathers shared his view. But this perspective was indeed current during the age of our founders.
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html

The context of this letter and the subsequent use of the "wall" metaphor is rather interesting. A staunch opponent of the "wall" perspective makes the following summary:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0069.html

I am not a fan of the government sponsoring religious activities. But I hope that no one will try to counter my comments, by suggesting that I advocate "political atheism and rampant licentiousness". I still remember saying the Lord's prayer in kindergarten. Everyone seemed to know the words, but they were not my words, and the message of my being an outsider was clear enough. I imagine that the Jews present got the message as well.

I oppose any effort to use the "wall" to stifle or discredit the introduction of a religious viewpoint into the public arena. Say the pledge however you like, whenever you like. Pray however you like and more often. Keep the government from interfering with these practices. At the same time, I am oppposed to government workers - as agents of the government - leading such activites. It simply seems to me, that the state cannot direct such activities without inevitably creating a coercive environment that is hostile to people outside the mainstream. And this is what we really need government to protect against.

(Are public references under attack, or state-sponsored ones?) You might like also to consider that in Russia the government is also working diligently to harass the religious organizations that it considers undesirable, or - the Catholic church included - regards as subversive to the interests of the state. I don't think that these actions are unrelated: sadly, over history, such actions seem to go hand in hand. So I don't see the irony at all. They are eager for establishment and willing in that cause to infringe on liberty; we are fundamentally against infringements of liberty and are willing in that cause to refrain from anything resembling establishment.

Can we maintain religious practice and values without government stimulus? I hope so. I hate to think that we are so pitiful that we would fail in the important work of transmitting religious values without nanny government.

djs,

Good post. Thank you.

Axios

God Save the Queen

Actually, no, not the way you are understanding it. The wall of separation that Jefferson spoke about is not the unfriendly relationship between church and state which we have today (and the idea was misused to discriminate unjustly). This can be easily evidenced by reading Jefferson�s closing to the letter in the link in which he stated: I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem. The wall that Jefferson spoke of was one of making sure that there would not be a state religion and he quoted the Constitution itself (keep in mind that Jefferson voted to allot funds for the Christianization of the Indians). The Constitution itself appeals to the Creator as the source of all of our rights. It is amazing how some now use it to argue for the eradication of all references to God from public life. It was never meant to do this.

We will never go back to a time where a particular prayer is prayed in school, nor should we. But we must return to an atmosphere where prayer and people of faith are allowed to express their faith in public life. If a group of children wish to organize a prayer club at school they must be allowed to do so, be they Christians, Jews, Moslems, or of another faith. A high school valedictorian must be guaranteed to right to speak openly about his or her religious faith on graduation day. If one group of employees is allowed to use a conference room at lunch for Toastmasters, Weight Watchers or Book Clubs people of faith must be treated equally and allowed to meet to study the Bible or other religious book.

We have distorted the Constitution. We have turned the Amendment from one which protects religious freedom by making sure that there is no state church into one which has excised all reference to God from public life. If we continue to excise God as the source of all of our freedoms we will eventually have no freedoms.

With all due respect to djs, the irony is clear. Russia certainly has its problems but at least she is attempting to appeal to the Christian morality that is rooted in the Ten Commandments as the basis of its society. We, on the other had are removing the moral foundation of our society and replacing it with nothing. Right and wrong is now an individual choice. Abortion, euthanasia and human cloning are all personal choices.

I was just reading an article about a high school World War II history course. One of the students stated: �Well, I think what Hitler did was wrong, but who am I to force my personal morality upon anyone else.� This is what the firm wall of separation of church and state, freedom from religion, the re-writing of the Constitution is bringing to our society.

That is not my understanding. I repeat from my previous post that I am opposed to any understanding of this wall as inhibiting free expression of religious ideas by individuals. This opposition includes expression by government workers, in their actions as private individuals. This opposition includes a repudiation of any disparagement of religion of religious values. What Jefferson did oppose, in light of the 1st amendment, was any act of the Federal government (now by the 14th amendment extended also to the states) to direct religious actions.

If by "public life" you mean acts of government, then I agree, but am not troubled by it. It works out badly. Contemporary Russia is a case in point. And while America has largely avoided outright persecution, we lagged far behind our framers ideals in shedding religious bigotry and invidious discrimination.

If on the other hand, by "public life" you mean acts of individuals in the public arena, then I totally disagree with your assessment. What is the evidence for it? What private or public figure has been legally sanctioned for quoting scripture or reciting prayers in public discourse?

I am skeptical about the causal connection. Does this child have parents? It is their reponsibility, with support from extended families and religious communities and all those who have the public ear to inculcate and to promote religious values. Not, IMO, the state.

How can I as a person separate MYSELF? I am BOTH a Republican and a Catholic. There is NO way I can separate myself or cut myself in half. In the same way, the country shouldn't be that way.

The separation of state and church is not good, it resulted in Constitution allowing abortion, etc. And right now as we speak the Supreme Court will look into removing anti-sodomy laws.

And people are critizing President George W. Bush for saying "God bless you" or for praying in comtemplation during "moment of silences" since 9/11. WHY are they critizing the President? Oh because He is the PRESIDENT which is of the government who excercises prayer?

If we continue with the theory of separation of church and state, mark my words, God will be totally REMOVED from our country at every corner and sects. We cannot allow that.

IN matter of fact, I forgot which pope, but back in the 18th or 19th Century, a pope wrote an ENCYLICAL attacking against the separation of Church and State...claiming it was a HERESY. Yes! HERESY. I'll have to look it up somewhere.

Maybe somebody on the forum knows about it.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
AMERICAN & CATHOLIC

Are we seriously in danger of becoming a socialist country if "under God" was taken out of the Pledge? I don't see the fate of our republic resting on whether "under God" is in the pledge. I don't have a problem saying it; I grew up reciting the Pledge with "under God" included. However, I think there are far more ominous trends/problems in this country that are steering us away from being a "Christian nation."

God Bless,

Janka

The "wall of separation" phrase has, and has had varying meanings. Here's another article, from "First Things" that traces its history.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/reviews/smith.html

It may very well be that some hold that the first amendment implies the establishment of secularism. This notion would explain the criticisms of George Bush noted by SPDundas. Such a perspective, however, is, not only incorrrect, IMO, it also has no legal precedent or force, to the best of my knowledge. It is, moreover, entirely distinct from other perspectives on this "wall" - e.g., that the state has no competence in theology and morals, and should stay out of these areas, leaving them to those with some competence; that religious institutions should steer clear of the Faustian bargain of deriving support for their activities from the states, etc. It is important to be discerning about which perspectives should be opposed, which should be accepted, and which should be endorsed.

The most recent, lengthy discussion of this matter by Rome is Dignitatis Humanae. Here is a nice article that discusses Dignitas Humanae and helps in this discernment.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HRREVOLU.TXT

Yes, the First Amendment certainly never was intended to eradicate all references to God in public life, nor should it be used as such. But your very acurate quotes of Jefferson show that this understanding did go through some "development" over history, to the benefit of our society. We no longer have state financed Protestantism, complusary prayers in school nor does the government send Protestant missionaries to the Indians. And this is well.

Yes, and this is what the Equal Access Act, passed by Congress, is all about. Four years ago the President sent out a memorandum to public agencies reminding them of the rights under the Equal Access Act and that it has been found constitutional by the courts.

Well, this gets into the rights of private employers. Some consistency here would be good.

I think things are not that bad and are improving.

Russia has more liberal abortion policies than the USA and no significant pro-life movement and the ROC has been silent on the matter of abortion (some bishops are openly "pro-choice", sad to say).

Yes, go to the "Urbal Legends" website and you will find that this reported incident has no basis in fact.

It was the fight against Hitler that brought together the "popular front" coalition of liberals, Catholics, socialists and communists. Had these social groups put asider their mutual resentment earlier, Hitler may have never come to power. Had they not done so when they did, we might all be under Nazi rule right now.

Axios

The removal of the words �under God� from the Pledge of Allegiance does not by itself destroy the moral foundation of our society. It is, however, another successful step by those who seek to remove all objective standards of right and wrong from our society.

Some? There are many who hold such the position djs describes. There are numerous powerful organizations like the ACLU and the misnamed �People for the American Way� which champion an interpretation of the First Amendment to mean that any reference to God in public society must be prohibited. The same thing is happening in Europe where the European Union, in a so-called respect for religious pluralism, is attempting to build a society where God is neither acknowledged nor welcomed in society.

Both the Russian people and the Russian Orthodox Church are only in the beginning stages of recovery from the damage done to that society and Church by the godless communists. We have no way of knowing the future of that society. I am heartened that some there are at least attempting to build a society based upon Gospel Teachings rather then allowing the state or individual choice determine what is right and wrong. It will take generations of prayer, patience and effort on their part and we must pray for them.

You may be correct that it is urban legend. The point of the story, however, is quite true. Our children are taught that moral choices are personal and that they are not to inflict their personal morals upon others. This is the antithesis of what Christianity is about. We are called to embrace and transform society. We are to live the Gospel and witness it to society. We are called to call the sinner to give up his sin, repent of it and follow Christ. This can be done in a pluralistic society. This can be done while respecting the freedom of conscience of individuals. Indeed, if we do not do it then we are not really Christians.

I agree with the Admin: people who seek to change our society do it by small, incremental changes that in and of themselves have no meaning, but taken together add up to a difference. Once "under God" is removed, the next step is they'll try to change the word "pledge" to "affirm" or "choose to belive" or something like that, then they will make another change, and another and another.... Yes, here I am preaching the slippery slope theory! :-)

anastasios

Again, an ambivalence on Hitlerism is not new to the present day (remember Chamberlin?). In fact you had Catholics divided between conservative Catholics who said Stalin is bad too, so we shouldn't take sides, particularly as opposing Hitler would mean joining with liberals, socialists and communists. Then you had liberal Catholics who created the "Popular Front", breaking past Catholic practice in allining with these liberals, socialists and commmunists.

Maybe the fictional high school student is a 1930's conservative Catholic?

True, we don't. That is why I do not think we can accurately say "Russia ... is attempting to appeal to the Christian morality that is rooted in the Ten Commandments as the basis of its society." Maybe we could say "Some Russians are..."

Such was not done in the public schools when I was a student and it is not done in my locality today.

I would recommend caution at the assertion that our moral foundations are in a downfall. Such a claim suggests that the previous practices were a solid, even if imperfect, foundation.

Jim Crow, segregation, VietNam, Watergate, M.A.D., tolerance of domestic violence, anti-Semitism, etc. (and soon we'll see the impact of clericalism run rampet sheltering child abusers). The idea that socially agreed 'right and wrong' has a great track record is not an easy proprosition to defend. We are a pilgrim people, feebly stuggling along, doing the best we can. We had problems in the past and we have different problems today and tommorrow will bring a new set. Yet God abides.

Axios

the administrator wrote:
First, in a country as large as this there can be groups whose membership includes a small fraction of the people ("some"), but a large number ("many"); so let's not quibble.

I still have not persuaded you to define what you mean by "public society". I went to the PFAW website, and found much criticism of George Bush, much of which I agreed with. On the specific point of SPDundas, however, I could find no criticism for Bush's invoking God's blessings, or otherwise mentioning God in public. None.

I agree completely. At least insofar as "we" means parents, extended families, churches, public figures, etc. Not the government.

PS Who is teaching children the ideas that you mention?