dorkelf
Active Member
“Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse, or loss of property, for his religious opinions…”
Our nation has a religious heritage that is strongly Christian. I will even go beyond that to say that one particular Christian – not only a Christian in fact, but a Baptist Minister – played a very important role in the formulation of our US Constitution. His name was John Leland, and the above quote is his. Leland considered the separation of church and state to be vital for the free practice and expression of religious faith, and it was largely his advocacy on this issue that compelled Madison to append the ‘establishment clause’ onto our Constitution:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6952&abbr=cs_
If Leland were alive today, what would his fellow Christians think of him? How would he stand on the issue of the pledge of allegiance to one nation, “under God”? Would he approve of our government encouraging children to make a pledge acknowledging one God presiding over this nation, when many of their families may actually worship “three Gods, no God or twenty Gods”?
For many this is a difficult issue – for others (on both sides of the issue) personal agenda may get in the way too much to consider it fairly. As Christians, we personally love the idea of children in our schools being directed to say a pledge that acknowledges God. We hope that hearing about God will cause them to ask questions and seek to know who or what “God” is. But honestly, wouldn’t we be the first to object if children were compelled to say “under Allah” as part of a pledge instead? Iraq and Afghanistan both have a very strong Muslim heritage and such a pledge would be historically appropriate for them. Would we approve of such a pledge for them? Or would be prefer that the children of those countries not be directed towards Islam in this way? Shouldn’t the matter of religion be left to their families and their own free will?
I am not going to be in the majority here by saying that I cannot personally support any government-instituted pledge which compels the pledge-e to acknowledge the existence of God - but I am hoping that I can at least encourage all of you, my fellow believers, to develop an informed opinion in this matter and to consider its possible future ramifications to the free practice and expression of our faith. I hope you will follow this post with your own debate and opinions.
Paul
Our nation has a religious heritage that is strongly Christian. I will even go beyond that to say that one particular Christian – not only a Christian in fact, but a Baptist Minister – played a very important role in the formulation of our US Constitution. His name was John Leland, and the above quote is his. Leland considered the separation of church and state to be vital for the free practice and expression of religious faith, and it was largely his advocacy on this issue that compelled Madison to append the ‘establishment clause’ onto our Constitution:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6952&abbr=cs_
If Leland were alive today, what would his fellow Christians think of him? How would he stand on the issue of the pledge of allegiance to one nation, “under God”? Would he approve of our government encouraging children to make a pledge acknowledging one God presiding over this nation, when many of their families may actually worship “three Gods, no God or twenty Gods”?
For many this is a difficult issue – for others (on both sides of the issue) personal agenda may get in the way too much to consider it fairly. As Christians, we personally love the idea of children in our schools being directed to say a pledge that acknowledges God. We hope that hearing about God will cause them to ask questions and seek to know who or what “God” is. But honestly, wouldn’t we be the first to object if children were compelled to say “under Allah” as part of a pledge instead? Iraq and Afghanistan both have a very strong Muslim heritage and such a pledge would be historically appropriate for them. Would we approve of such a pledge for them? Or would be prefer that the children of those countries not be directed towards Islam in this way? Shouldn’t the matter of religion be left to their families and their own free will?
I am not going to be in the majority here by saying that I cannot personally support any government-instituted pledge which compels the pledge-e to acknowledge the existence of God - but I am hoping that I can at least encourage all of you, my fellow believers, to develop an informed opinion in this matter and to consider its possible future ramifications to the free practice and expression of our faith. I hope you will follow this post with your own debate and opinions.
Paul
