Actually, I’ve seen some pretty devout Christians who refused to swear to God in this situation because of the biblical prohibitions against oaths. (Matthew 5.33-35)
I’m sure I’ll get flamed here, but not only are there the biblical prohibitions against oaths, (Matthew 5.33-35), but also there is the requirement that there be a “Separation of church and state.”
First of all, we need to ask ourselves, which “God” is the Pledge of Allegiance referring to? Is it a Christian God? Is it American Indian Gods (god of the wind, gods of the sun, etc. - pantheism)? Is it Buddha?
Of course, most people (including myself) think this phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance was originally intended implicitly for the Christian God because this is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.
But if so, then the Pledge of Allegiance is, in fact, endorsing a particular religion, which defies the notion of “Separation of Church and State.”
Furthermore, on the other hand, if one says, “Oh no, we are not referring to a Christian God,” then Muslims might think the word, “God” means Allah in the pledge of allegiance.
The foregoing presents a logical argument for making the Pledge of Allegiance neutral because to say otherwise means you don’t believe in the separation of church and state.
Go ahead and flame me, folks, but I’m interested in a logical discussion on this subject. Maybe I’m missing something?
That I can at least understand (what you said)
[ Notably, the Democratic Party also attempted to remove reference to God in their party platform in 2012, ]
I’m not joking when I say Democrats are of the spirit of antichrist and may already be under the beginnings of the Strong Delusion.
Barack, whatever he is, does an excellent impression of the coming Antichrist, IMHO, in a lot of ways. He lies like the Devil and they love him for it.
Again, to reiterate, I believe the coming Beast arises from Europe.
Those who utter such folly have no understanding - or else rely on a superficial knowledge of scripture, where everything is an abstract construct. Scriptural citations must always be taken in context of the whole, not in stand-alone pieces. In this example. given from Matthew 5 ...
“Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king:” [Matthew 5:33-35]
Reasoned understanding, based in a contextual reading of the scriptures, reveals the proper application of the prohibition on taking oaths:
“Not to swear at all”: It is not forbid to swear in truth, justice and judgment; to the honor of God, or our own or neighbor’s just defense: but only to swear rashly, or profanely, in common discourse, and without necessity.