Government and Reiligous We must have Government working with Christians and Bible.
"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
(1 Timothy 1:8-11 NIV)
"28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”
(Mark
3:28-30 NIV)
"31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
(Matthew 12:31-32 NIV)
"UNDER GOD" from
www.billygraham.org,
http://www.billygraham.org/DMag_SpiritualHelp_Article.asp?ArticleID=434
In June 2002, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California declared that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because the Pledge includes the phrase "under God."
The case was filed by Michael Newdow, who claims that his daughter was injured when her teacher led her class in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God and that the United States is "one nation under God." Newdow says he also has been injured because having that phrase recited in a public school interferes with his ability to educate his daughter about his religious belief, atheism.
On March 24 of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. The justices will reconvene in early June to discuss the case, with their decision to be announced soon afterward. A public education campaign called "One Nation Under God" is working to support the legal defense fund for preserving the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Q: Why did you want to be involved in the effort to protect the phrase "one nation under God"?
A: I think that as Michael Newdow brings this case to the courts, he is trying to take the decision away from the people. I think he was using his daughter to bring his own belief to the courts. If he had said, "Let's just vote on it, shall we?" that would have been different. But to bring it to the court, the way he did, raised an issue that is as old as time.
I think the Christian community has some apathy about this issue, not realizing that it could lead to the very loss of our national heritage. Historically, America has answered to a higher authority. We see that heritage everywhere. It is on our money. It is in our court system as people put their hand on a Bible to swear an oath. It is in our everyday fiber. As an American citizen I wanted to step up and say something that had value. And as a Christian I find it extremely offensive that our heritage of believing that we answer to a higher authority is being challenged.
Q: Why should Christians be concerned about the Supreme Court's decision?
A: We have Christian roots in this country. When our forefathers put down roots in desolate places, the thing that allowed them to survive was that they had a faith to see them through the tough times.
The Constitution of the United States allows us to change; I don't have a problem with that. But if we get to the point where more people do not believe in a God than who do believe in God, we will have a hollow legal system—we will have something without heart. Some people may believe that their conscience is enough to guide them not to lie, be deceitful or do the other things God has commanded us not to do. I disagree. People who don't believe in God may have their own way of justifying some bad act they have committed. People certainly have the right to say, "I'm strong enough to be honest with my friends and neighbors—I can be a good American and not be a Christian." But I believe there is a decay that is eroding America, and as a result, God begins to disappear from our society.
Q: What will change if this phrase is taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
A: I believe that if "under God" were taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, it would create a downhill locomotive that would begin to take out of our fiber all the things we believe in as Christians. Already we are struggling to keep a handle on morality and on our vision for this country. It bothers me to know there is the possibility that I as a Christian would be not only an underdog, but that I would be trodden upon if I claimed that I was a Christian.
I have no doubt that because of this frivolous suit, other people will gravitate toward it, even if that wasn't their intention to begin with. Once someone has had that kind of success, you can only imagine. Eventually the president may not put his hand on the Bible when he is going to take his oath. And people might not do that in court. When you put your hand on the Bible, you are saying something much stronger than just telling your peers that you're going to tell the truth.
The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't say that everyone is a Christian. It doesn't even say that everyone believes in God. It just says that this nation is protected by God. I don't want that taken away.
Q: Why do Americans need to voice their opinions even after the case is heard by the Supreme Court?
A: I asked that question of One Nation Under God—the coordinating organization for this grassroots movement. I asked, "Can judges be influenced by public opinion?"
I learned that they can. Recently, the Library of Congress released the private documents of the late Justice Harry Blackmun. The papers reveal that in several key abortion cases, justices were keenly interested in the perceived public reaction to their rulings—indicating that courts can be influenced by public sentiment.
Also, one justice has recused himself from this case, so there is a possibility that it could end up in a 4-4 tie. If that happens, the lower court's decision to strike the phrase will be in force. At that point there could be congressional action to include "under God" in the Pledge.
So we can't be passive. We need to talk to the media; we need to talk to our representatives and senators. We have to be sure that we support this movement so that the Supreme Court and other leaders get the message.
We also need to help the legal defense of this phrase. The mother of Michael Newdow's daughter, Sandra Banning, is in debt from her part in this case. She wants the nation and the world to know that this suit brought by her daughter's father is frivolous. She wants people to know that her daughter is a Christian.
)
