In many of the church/state issues we run into what is called Ceremonial Deism. Where the religious connotations of say an opening prayer is more based on tradition rather than the following of a specific religion or invocation of a specific god. We see this often in protecting prayers at city counsel meetings, school boards, and other government functions.
A version of this is used to protect the “under god” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance. The claim is that as ‘under god’ does not reference any particular god it is perfectly ok. Some go so far as to claim the statement is not religious at all, or does not even mean ‘god’. Critics generally feel these are a smokescreen. That those protecting or promoting “under god”/”in god we trust” or the like do very much mean the Christian god, and their not Jesus specifically is to get around the first amendment.
But wait!! What about arguments for Americas ‘christian heritage’? Many of these same groups argue that the US was founded on Christian principals. How do they do this when the Constitution has no references to god at all? By quoting the Declaration of Independence, which makes references to “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” and “endowed by their Creator”. If anything these references are even more vague than in the pledge. If we are to take ‘Natures God’ as being specifically referring to Jesus, then why do we take “under god” and “god bless America” as not referring to him?
Seems that the interpretation is being tailored to the situation so as to insure the prayer or god reference stays. Isn’t there a commandment about false witness or something? Ok, such an accusation would be very hard to prove. It would most likely require a person flat out stating they want such statements for the reason of promoting Christianity, which is unlikely to happen. The closest example to this I can think of is the congressman who wanted to expand the prison chaplain program. When the prison in question hired the most qualified person for the job, and it turned out they were Wiccan, the congressman demanded the person be removed or all funding for prison chaplains would be cut off.
A version of this is used to protect the “under god” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance. The claim is that as ‘under god’ does not reference any particular god it is perfectly ok. Some go so far as to claim the statement is not religious at all, or does not even mean ‘god’. Critics generally feel these are a smokescreen. That those protecting or promoting “under god”/”in god we trust” or the like do very much mean the Christian god, and their not Jesus specifically is to get around the first amendment.
But wait!! What about arguments for Americas ‘christian heritage’? Many of these same groups argue that the US was founded on Christian principals. How do they do this when the Constitution has no references to god at all? By quoting the Declaration of Independence, which makes references to “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” and “endowed by their Creator”. If anything these references are even more vague than in the pledge. If we are to take ‘Natures God’ as being specifically referring to Jesus, then why do we take “under god” and “god bless America” as not referring to him?
Seems that the interpretation is being tailored to the situation so as to insure the prayer or god reference stays. Isn’t there a commandment about false witness or something? Ok, such an accusation would be very hard to prove. It would most likely require a person flat out stating they want such statements for the reason of promoting Christianity, which is unlikely to happen. The closest example to this I can think of is the congressman who wanted to expand the prison chaplain program. When the prison in question hired the most qualified person for the job, and it turned out they were Wiccan, the congressman demanded the person be removed or all funding for prison chaplains would be cut off.
