"Under God" is Under Fire

AP Staff

Culture WarIn The NewsGovernment and GodGovernment and God

At first glance, the news seemed encouraging. According to a decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court on June 14, 2004, the phrase “under God” will continue to be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this is not as encouraging as it appears. Instead of ruling on the merits of the case, eight of the nine justices (Justice Scalia recused himself from ruling) decided that the respondent did not have the proper standing to bring a case before the Supreme Court, leaving the Pledge of Allegiance open to further attacks.

The case began in 2000, when Michael A. Newdow filed a lawsuit in the Eastern California District of the Ninth Circuit against the U.S. Congress, President Bush, the State of California, the Elk Grove Unified School District, and school superintendent David W. Gordon. In his suit, Newdow, who is an atheist, claimed that requiring his daughter to recite the phrase “under God” every morning in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the clauses of the Constitution that prohibit the establishment of a national religion and the free exercise of religion (Stevens, 2004, p. 4).

The Pledge of Allegiance originated in the 1892 celebrations of Columbus Day, and read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” The wording was revised several times over the course of the next sixty-two years, the final change coming in 1954 when President Eisenhower approved the addition of the words “under God.” He said: “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war” (“The Story of the Pledge of Allegiance”).

The district court ruled that the Pledge was constitutional, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals eventually overturned the ruling. Following motions filed by Sandra Banning—the mother and legal custodian of Newdow’s daughter—and a custody ruling by the California Superior Court, the Court of Appeals amended its opinion. The new opinion omitted any statement on the overall constitutionality of the Pledge, but ruled that the school district’s policy—requiring teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge every morning—did violate the Constitution. The Elk Grove School District then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking if Newdow had proper standing to bring the suit, and, if so, whether the policy of required recitation violated the Constitution (Stevens, pp. 5-7).

Writing for the court, Justice Stevens said: “Nothing that either Banning [the girl’s mother] or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious views” (p. 13). The court ruled that Newdow could not bring the case, since he was not the legal custodian of the child, and so overturned the amended opinion of the Ninth Circuit. Thus, this ruling left undecided the merits of the Pledge’s constitutionality.

However, in a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist: “On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words ‘under God,’ does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment” (2004, p. 1). In another concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor wrote: “Like the Chief Justice, I believe that we must examine those questions, and, like him, I believe that petitioner school district’s policy of having its teachers lead students in voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance does not offend the Establishment Clause” (2004, p. 1). In a third concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote: “We granted certiorari [certiorari is a review of a decision by a lower court] in this case to decide whether the Elk Grove Unified School District’s Pledge policy violates the Constitution. The answer to that question is: ‘no’ ” (2004, p. 1).

Where does this leave the Pledge of Allegiance? As shown by the concurring opinions above, three of the eight justices who ruled in the case were prepared to decide that it is constitutional to recite the Pledge with the phrase “under God” intact. For now, the Pledge of Allegiance remains a reminder that the United States of America was founded on the belief of a Supreme Being. Whether or not that view continues, however, remains to be seen.

The application to Christians is that taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance would put the United States farther down the slippery slope as it heads toward becoming a godless, morally depraved nation. This country was founded upon the common law principles of the Old World, which were, in turn, founded upon biblical, godly morals. If we are not under God, then the sky is the limit to our degeneration.

REFERENCES

O’Connor, Justice Sandra Day (2004), Elk Grove v. Newdow, U.S. Supreme Court, [On-line], URL: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf.

Rehnquist, Chief Justice William H. (2004), Elk Grove v. Newdow, U.S. Supreme Court, [On-line], URL: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf.

Stevens, Justice John Paul (2004), Elk Grove v. Newdow, U.S. Supreme Court, [On-line], URL: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf.

“The Story of the Pledge of Allegiance,” Flag Day Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.flagday.org/Pages/StoryofPledge.ht

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Lifting Up Hands | Pleasing God in Worship Video 23 min

 https://video.wvbs.org/video/lifting-up-hands/

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Destroying America

 

                   Destroying America

Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it should wake you from your careless slumber on this important truth.
        
        We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia", explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

        
        Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.
        
        The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”
               
        "Here is how they do it," Lamm said.
        
        "First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims."
        
        Lamm went on:
        
        "Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds."
        
        "Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
        
        "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
        
        "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority placation."
        
        "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will " Balkanize " America as surely as Kosovo."
        
        "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural country, having established multi-culturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
        
        In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally, he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
        
        There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."
        
        Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
       
        If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you.  NOTHING is going to happen if you don't!
                
        "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Ronald Reagan

 

God’s Wood or Man’s Plastic?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleScientific Foreknowledge

Evolutionists are confident in their conviction that their explanations demonstrate their independent, autonomous existence to the exclusion of God. They literally “jump through hoops” and engage in scientific “ventriloquism” in their quest to achieve legitimacy for their atheistic bent. However, when all relevant evidence eventually comes to light, it fits “hand in glove” with the presence of the God of the Bible.

Prior to the invention of modern plastics, what would the Creator have humans to do for suitable containers? Wood, stone, or clay, and eventually metal, pretty much exhausted the possibilities. Yet, government agencies, like the USDA and the FDA, generally have advocated the use of plastic for cutting boards and other surfaces that sustain food contact, on the grounds that the micropores and knife cuts in wood provide hidden havens for deadly bacterial organisms. As one Extension Specialist from the Department of Human Nutrition stated: “for cleanability and control of microorganisms, plastic is the better choice.”

However, the best research available on the subject suggests otherwise. Dr. Dean Cliver, a microbiologist with the Food Safety Laboratory and World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Food Virology at the University of California-Davis, disputes the oft’-repeated claim regarding the superiority of plastic over wood. His research findings, conducted over a period of several years, have consistently demonstrated the remarkable antibacterial properties of wood.

Dr. Cliver and his research associates have tested five life-threatening bacteria (Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus) on four plastic polymers and more than ten species of hardwood, including hard maple, birch, beech, black cherry, basswood, butternut, and American black walnut. Within 3 minutes of inoculating wooden boards with cultures of the food-poisoning agents, 99.9 percent of the bacteria were unrecoverable. On the other hand, none of the bacteria tested under similar conditions on plastic died. In fact, leaving microbe populations on the two surfaces overnight resulted in microbial growth on the plastic boards, while no live bacteria were recovered from wood the next morning. Interestingly, bacteria are absorbed into the wood, but evidently do not multiply, and rarely if ever come back alive. In contrast, bacteria in knife scars in plastic boards remain viable (even after a hot-water-and-soap wash) and maintain their ability to surface later and contaminate foods. Treating wood cutting boards with oils and other finishes to make them more impermeable actually retards wood’s bactericidal activity. Microbiologists remain mystified by their inability to isolate a mechanism or agent responsible for wood’s antibacterial properties.

Do these research findings bear any resemblance to Mosaic injunctions 3,500 years ago which required the destruction of pottery that had become contaminated—while wood was simply to be rinsed (Leviticus 6:28; 11:32-33; 15:12)? Dr. Cliver concluded: “I have no idea where the image of plastic’s superiority came from; but I have spent 40 years promoting food safety, and I would go with plastic if the science supported it. I don’t necessarily trust ‘nature,’ but I do trust laboratory research.” Kudos to Dr. Cliver’s honesty. What about trusting nature’s God?

REFERENCES

Cliver, Dean O. (2002), “Plastic and Wooden Cutting Boards,” Unpublished manuscript.

Cliver, Dean O. (2002), personal letter.

Penner, Karen (1994), “Plastic vs. Wood Cutting Boards,” Timely Topics, Department of Human Nutrition, K-State Research and Extension.

Raloff, Janet (1993), “Wood Wins, Plastic Trashed for Cutting Meat,” Science News, 143[6]:84-85, February 6.

Raloff, Janet (1997), “Cutting Through the Cutting Board Brouhaha,” Science News Online, Food For Thought, July 11.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Overcoming Your Anger Video 29 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/overcoming-your-anger/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=Online%20Video%20Overcoming%20Your%20Anger&utm_medium=email 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Does God Know the Future?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Alleged DiscrepanciesExistence of GodNature of God

After God inflicted 10 dazzling, catastrophic afflictions on Pharaoh and the Egyptian population, the Israelites commenced their exit from Egypt. We are informed that God issued special instructions to Moses concerning their travel route:

Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. And the children of Israel went up in orderly ranks out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 13:17-18).

It has been suggested that here we have a case where God speaks of the future in conditional terms. It is claimed that God selected a certain route for the Exodus because of what the Israelites might have done otherwise—thus evoking the question, “Don’t we see God here considering the possibility—but not the certainty—that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?” The implication is that God’s omniscience is limited to the extent that He could not know for sure ahead of time whether the Israelites might change their minds and desire to return to Egypt. Hence, God is omniscient only in those areas where knowledge is available, but He is not omniscient in those areas that are “unknowable”—as in the case of the Israelites’ potential decision to abandon their attempt to exit Egypt.

Such a view most certainly makes God appear to be a precarious leader of His people: “We better do it this way, no, wait, we might better do it that way.” Such thinking borders on disrespect and a demeaning view of God which misapprehends the nature of Deity—Who is infinite in all His attributes. It is difficult for we humans—who are so enmeshed in a time/space continuum—to grasp the eternality of God and the fact that He is not subject to time or, in any way, restricted, limited, or confined by time. As the creator of time, He exists outside of time. So when the Bible depicts Him speaking of the future, such references are for the benefit of humans.

The underlying Hebrew grammar in this passage does not suggest that God, Himself, was uncertain about or unaware of what the Israelites would ultimately do. Uncertainty is not built into the word, though it may be used in a sentence where uncertainty is involved. The English rendering “lest perhaps” (NKJV) or “lest peradventure” (ASV/KJV) is one word in the original. The premiere Hebrew lexicon of our day defines the Hebrew term [פֶּן־] as “so that not, lest”—which does not inherently or necessarily imply uncertain possibility. If there are passages where the notion of “perhaps/possibility” are present, but there are also many passages where the same Hebrew term is used with no notion of “perhaps” or “possibly,” then the element of possibility or uncertainty is not inherent in the Hebrew word. Consequently, we must refrain from imposing or forcing that element onto the passage. Consider these English translations that capture the thrust of Exodus 13:17—

Christian Standard Bible: “for God said, ‘The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.’”

Common English Bible: “God thought, If the people have to fight and face war, they will run back to Egypt.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.”

The MSG: “for God thought, ‘If the people encounter war, they’ll change their minds and go back to Egypt.’”

These renderings rightly convey that God knew ahead of time that the Israelites would change their minds if they encountered the Philistine obstacle. It is stated in Scripture for the benefit of the reader.

Consider the following verses where the same Hebrew term is used that is used in Exodus 13:17—

Genesis 26:7—“The men who live there will kill me for Rebekah because she’s very beautiful” (CEB).1

Genesis 26:9—“I was afraid that you would kill me so that you could have her” (ERV).2

Genesis 31:31—“I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force” (NASB).3

Genesis 44:34—“Do not let me see the misery that would come on my father” (NIV).4

Judges 7:2—“Israel would boast against me” (NIV).5

Observe that, even if the wording of a number of translations leaves the inaccurate impression that God did not know what they would do, consider: To whom was God speaking when He made the statement, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt”? Moses had just completed an address to the entire nation regarding the necessity of an annual commemoration of their exit from Egypt. God must have been speaking to Moses and, perhaps, the elders of the nation, when He stated the rationale for His selected travel route. The verse simply reads, “and God said….” Surely, He was not just speaking into the air with no particular audience. Since they had just left Egypt, it makes perfect sense that, in His miraculous guidance of the nation via their divinely-designated leader, He spoke the words to Moses as an explanation for why he (Moses) was being instructed to take the route that avoided Philistine territory. In which case God was introducing into Moses’ mind the need for him as their leader to consider the possibility (which God knew to be a reality) that they might not follow through with their commitment to God. In that scenario, God would have been giving Moses a leadership lesson.

Built into God’s relationship with His people was the fact that He continuously placed before them two options: obey or disobey. He warned of punishment if they chose to disobey, but also refrained from punishment if they would repent and obey. So the “change of mind” that God often expressed in His dealings with Israel was not unanticipated or based on uncertainty within Himself as to what the people might do. He knew ahead of time whether they would repent, and so He reacted accordingly. There was no uncertainty or lack of knowledge involved on God’s part. Jonah 3:10 illustrates this consistent pattern: “Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” God’s changing responses were not due to His lack of knowledge, but to the people’s own free will decisions. Just because every verse does not offer this technical explanation as to God’s operations, we must, nevertheless, assume that it applies to all such situations. So His “change of mind” is simply the application of His intention to act in relation to their actions: “If they do this, I will do this; if they do that, this will be My response.” In other words, God accommodates human limitations by couching His actions in time-laden expressions. The issue is not whether God will change His mind (as in Numbers 14:19-20), but whether He knows ahead of time that He will do so. Changing His mind does not imply limited omniscience. Human free will is so delicate and sensitive that God goes out of His way not to interfere with it or short circuit the process necessary for free will to be exercised unimpeded.

Endnotes

1 Of 15 English translations, 7 have “will kill me,” 7 have “would kill him,” and 1 has “would kill me.”

2 Of 20 English translations, 14 have “lest I die,” 2 have “lest I should die,” 2 have “I would die,” and 2 have “I will/I’ll die.” Use of the term “lest” does not suggest only possibility, since the statement that Isaac makes indicates that he concocted the lie for the very reason that he was convinced they would (not might) kill him if they thought she was his wife.

3 Of 34 English translations, 3 have “lest thou/you take,” 3 have “lest thou shouldest take”/“lest you should take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst violently take away,” 1 has “thou wouldst have taken,” 1 has “He’ll take his daughters,” and 24 have “thou/you wouldst/would take.” The context shows that Jacob was confident that Laban would (not might) take back his daughters by force.

4 Judah insisted to Joseph that if he and his brothers returned to Jacob without Benjamin, it would devastate their father—not might, may, possibly, or perhaps—but, rather, it would destroy him.

5 God required Gideon to reduce the size of his army for the expressed reason that if such were not done, the Israelites would—for certain—take credit for their victory. The NASB has, “for Israel would become boastful.” The New Revised Standard reads, “Israel would only take credit away from me.”  

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Other Historical Evidences of a Global Flood Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/other-historical-evidences-of-a-global-flood-5938/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Worship Video 6 min

 Did Jesus Accept Worship? | Why Jesus? | WVBS Online Video

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

What’s the Point? Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/whats-the-point/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.