lpetrich

I've thought of some theological objections to that infamous phrase "under God".

The Ten Commandments, which start off big sections of laws attributed to Moses, include "Thou shalt not take my name in vain" (KJV) (God speaking, of course) (modern-English translations say something like "misuse my name" or "use my name for some frivolous or wicked purpuse"). This is why religious Jews often use the spelling "G-d".

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6) tells us not to try to impress others about how pious it is, and tells us to pray in private and use straightforward, simple language.

And Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25 tell us about the Roman Empire's idolatrous coinage that one ought to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's".

Spazmatic

I thought it was "grant unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"? Anyways... This is an utterly famous quotation for the separation of Church and state. It was used against the Pope by early European monarchs to remove his power over them. Also used was the story where Peter runs in with two swords, whereafter Christ promptly says "those are enough" or something similar (my memory bites). Anyways, that was interpreted to mean a separation between Church and state. Separation is the natural path decided upon when the Investiture Conflict began (for all of Western civilization) and those damned Fundies should get that through their fucked up heads.

Grumpy

I like this theological argument:

Pat Robertson (that eminent theologian) says God will punish the USA for removing "under God" from the pledge.

This contradicts anyone who claims that "God" is a generic term which does not offend anyone, and does not rise to the level of an established religion. If so, then it must be a generic, politically correct, inoffensive God who will, as ol' Pat says, wipe us off the map.

Atheist121

I think Pat's lawn furniture told him that.

lpetrich

I've thought of another theological objection:

That "under God" represents an unjustified claim of divine endorsement, something like the Divine Right of Kings. Including King George III of England.

lpetrich

And let us not forget about the theological problem of idolatry. If it's supposed to be such a sin, then why act like a flag-worshipper?

Splat

I don't understand why their god suddenly needs the help of the US government. Republicans used to delight in reminding us how great the gov. is at screwing things up, so why trust it with their most precious posession, even if it's just an imaginary friend?

Spazmatic

God is supposed to be the almighty, right? So, uhm, why does He need PR?

Seriously, though, separation has been the path Western civilization has been on since the Investiture Conflict. I don't understand how people can be so stupid (like Pat). I do actually question if their lawn furniture tells them things like that. Or that green guy from the Flintstones.

madmax2976

As this thread implies, and as I've argued in the other Pledge of Allegiance thread, we have allowed Christians to steal the word "God" and treat it as their own. It is NOT for them to define this word, and we should not allow them to continue doing so. "God" can be Yahweh, Jehovah, Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, Rama, Allah, the Great Spirit, the Great Gazoo, or, as in my interpretation, Nature itself - all there is.

By allowing Christians to force the definition of God to be the Christian bible God Yahweh, we allow them far more power and authority than they deserve. Their deity is the warlike, tribal deity of an ancient nomadic tribe of sheep herders - nothing more. It is not the God of everyone else who is not a Christian.

I would suggest that we refuse to any longer endorse or implicity condone the Christian theft of the term "God" to automatically mean their God, Yahweh.

If we did so, this whole mess about "under God", "In God We Trust", "God save this honorable court", etc. could all go away. They could interpret it as they wish and the rest of us could interpret it as we wish, including a non-religious sense.