[Vision2020] pledge (was Satanism)

Tue Mar 18 03:05:53 PDT 2008

But the addition of "under God," no matter how strongly I believe in and worship God, is not only an endorsement of a particular Deity, making this an example of state-sponsored religious exercise, but also isn't accurate.  While God is over all things, a nation that permits the violence, poverty, and environmental degradation that the U.S. does clearly isn't taking "under God" very seriously.  Which, I believe, proves my earlier point.

And no -- no action or inaction on the part of our country ever justifies terrorist attacks against it or its people, just in case anyone  thinks I'm pulling a  Falwell/Robertson thing  regarding  9/11 and judgment.   Terror and violence are  hideous things,  and we  who  deplore 9/11  ought to demonstrate our  hatred of it by  doing all we can to  repent of our country's  warring response  to it.

Keely 

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:51:52 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] pledge (was Satanism)
To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; suehovey at moscow.com; godshatter at yahoo.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; donaledwards at hotmail.com

Keely,     I agree that you should not pledge allegiance to anything over God, just allegiance to something "Under God".      It is not to show you care more about God than the country, but the USA over any other country.      Best Regards,     Donovan

keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:      Actually, I believe it's at best problematic for Christians to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  We may love our country, but if we take Scripture and our beliefs in Christ seriously, we ought not ever promise our allegiance to anything other than to God.  Promises and pledges and oaths and vows within the
 framework of God's sovereignty and supremacy are permitted for those who identify themselves as believers, but it is not possible to swear allegiance to anything that exists out of the realm of the Kingdom of God and still be a faithful believer.  Nor is it OK to just stand up and recite the pledge or anything else as an exercise in rote group-think, no matter how noble the words appear.  A Christian might earnestly believe that State should be accorded such binding, unwavering loyalty, but she would be wrong.  More wrong than that is the idea that the pledge, or any other civil ritual, is "no big deal."  

It's a big deal to promise something in error, and a bigger deal to promise and consider it not terribly significant because it's just "what people do."   And that's the danger of any civil-generated, supported, endorsed, or required religious practice -- people get lured into the counterfeit,
 or become so dull of conscience that nothing much matters.  It's disturbing to see that the most loyal pledge-reciters and defenders of the material flag are professed believers in Christ.  Getting this one wrong makes it easier to get all the subsequent things wrong, and that first step of misguided patriotic expression has put this nation and the Church on a long, painful, and harmful path.

I love my country -- but Christ has my eternal allegiance.  I love my husband -- but Christ has my eternal allegiance.  I love my church, but Christ has my eternal allegiance.  Should loving (being united with, committing to, etc.) any of them pit me against submission to Christ, then they must be set aside.  It rarely, of course, comes to that, but the words we say do matter, and empty exercises of civic religion demonstrate no religion at all.

Keely

      From: suehovey at moscow.com
To:
 donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; godshatter at yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:25:08 -1000
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; donaledwards at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By

        Donovan,      The Pledge of Allegiance was formalized in 1892 and for the next 62 years it was spoken by Americans everywhere with feeling and patriotic accord even though it did not contain the words, "under God."  That didn't happen until 1954 when President Eisenhower signed the proclamation into law.  Many of us grew up reciting the original words in Sunday School, elementary classrooms, and Girl Scout meetings and we felt no less patriotic, nor did we feel the Pledge was in some way incomplete.       I do not believe the addition of the words, "under God," made it more appropriate or more expansive.  We need to be very careful when giving God credit for the direction this nation has chosen throughout it's oftentimes turbulent history.  Personally, I know of no historical evidence that God ever sent anyone a message indicating a revision of the Pledge was necessary.     Sue H.     ----- Original Message -----   From: Donovan Arnold   To: Paul Rumelhart   Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; donaledwards at hotmail.com   Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 6:03 PM  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Satanism Was: Of, By  
  Paul,     You write, 
    "I can sympathize with the people who wish to take "Under God" out of the 
Pledge. If it was simply the original wording from way back when, it 
wouldn't really be a problem. However, it was placed there relatively 
recently (1940's?). I think that was a mistake and should probably be 
rectified."     The words, "Under God" have been in the pledge much longer than they have not been in the pledge. Further, why is something invalid because it was done after 1940? Are the men that fought in World War II not just as worthy of adding to the pledge and American tradition as the original author of the Pledge? They were put there for a reason, to reflect the wishes and beliefs of the American people. Might I also add, that most the vocals against the word "God" in the pledge won't say the pledge anyway. So let the 95%+ of the population say it the way they want, not have to say it the way the other 5% want
 us to say it.      "I also don't think the idea is to weed God out of our daily lives. Just 
let the government stay neutral. Protecting the rights of citizens to 
worship as they wish was one of the major driving forces of the founding 
of this country. Keeping the government neutral was meant to help that, 
not hinder it."     I think it is the idea of Atheists to weed out theism, of any kind, that is why they are called "a" theists, not pro-theists. They want to rid us of tax supported churches, tax supported cemeteries, tax supported chaplains in the military, and tax supported prayer of any kind.  I don't see where you get the idea that the government should be agnostic, or neutral instead of pro-God. This is suppose to be a representative government. The vast majority, 90% +, believe in God, and want Him in their daily lives.  Weeding Him out, as many Atheists are trying to do,
 is an infringement on the rights of 90% of the people that want an opportunity to be reminded and to pray.     I do agree that the government should be neutral on which religion people follow, not push one over the other. But we have to have God in this country, because otherwise we are restricting religion. Restricting God from government is not freedom of religion, it is an annihilation of it. Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. 

Best Regards,     Donovan     
Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:  I would like to split what you are saying into two separate subjects, 
because I have a different response for each. The two subjects are 
Church and State, and Overly Aggressive Political Correctness.

I can sympathize
 with the people who wish to take "Under God" out of the 
Pledge. If it was simply the original wording from way back when, it 
wouldn't really be a problem. However, it was placed there relatively 
recently (1940's?). I think that was a mistake and should probably be 
rectified. Like Chas, though, I don't consider it worth the effort. I 
also don't care much about the "In God We Trust" on the currency. It 
would spend the same way if it said "In Allah We Trust" or "In Big Juju 
We Trust". The thing that kills me about this topic is that if 
Christianity was a minority religion and some other religion was being 
favored in our classrooms and on our currency, they would all be up in 
arms. That's the reason Church and State need to be separated.

On the topic of political correctness, I can agree. Although I 
celebrate the Winter Solstice with probably the same amount of fervor as 
your average Christian celebrates Christmas, I don't
 care much if 
someone say "Merry Christmas" to me. I take it in the spirit it was 
given. If someone wishes me a happy Kwanzaa, I'll take it the same way.

I also don't think the idea is to weed God out of our daily lives. Just 
let the government stay neutral. Protecting the rights of citizens to 
worship as they wish was one of the major driving forces of the founding 
of this country. Keeping the government neutral was meant to help that, 
not hinder it. 

Paul

Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Satan's greatest trick was to convince people that he doesn't exist. I 
> think Satanism, is, for the most part, the same as Atheism.
> 
> What Satan wants is to remove God, all things related to him, and in 
> our daily thoughts completely. To make us about ourselves, and the 
> world we live in.
> 
> Atheists are best at doing this. They have made God very unpopular in 
> this country. You cannot
 even say, "Merry Christmas" without 
> subjecting yourself to a potential lawsuit.
> 
> Separation of Church from State was designed to protect our religion 
> from being indoctrinated and controlled by the government, not to weed 
> God out of our daily lives and thinking, which is what is happening, 
> sadly, all over this country, and you can see the negative impact it 
> is having.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Donovan
>
> */Chasuk /* wrote:
>
> > Also, you may want to read up on modern-day Satanists. I know a
> couple
> > of them. There is a big difference between LaVey Satanism and the
> > mostly-non-existent Luciferian Satanism portrayed in bad B
> movies. It's
> > not my cup of tea, but it has some aspects to it that I can respect.
>
> I've known several Satanists, and most of them were just atheists with
> a peculiar sense
 of humor, combined with a desire to shock. None of
> them were the B movies types.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> 

    Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 

=======================================================
 List services made available by
 First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
    Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more. =======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

      Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080318/073a0dba/attachment-0001.html 