How Arbitrary…

I’m not sure which is more arbitrary:

1) the ruling on this case based on the contemporary “interpretation” and defense of the words of the Constitution [the separation of church and state habeen used so silence Christianity in the public for the last 50 years – why change now?], or

2) the argument of the athiests that not mentioning God is somehow ‘not a religious statement’, or

3) the decision that the president gets to choose what to included in an inaugural ceremony [so if one man decided to take out any and all religious elements that would be okay, but not for the courts to rule on?], or

4) the statement that if something “is not a live controversy” then it cannot “avail itself of the judicial powers of the federal courts” and is therefore, “moot” [it has to be controversial to be relevant and judged upon?].

Atheists Lose Suit Against ‘God’ in Presidential Oath

The reality is that this is just another example of Religious Pluralism trumping the status quo. Athiests step over the line when they don’t go after the overtly Christian ethic. After all, a little bit of religious salad on the plate is healthy for everyone.


4 responses to this post.

  1. Religious pluralism is what this country is founded on; it is merely the outworkings of the logic.


  2. Do you distinguish between Social Pluralism and Religious Pluralism.

    Social Pluralism being a composite society allowing for the validity of different relgions on a societal level, not dealing with the metaphysical or dogmatic questions…..

    Religious Pluralism being a theological construct that says all religions are legitimate…all are equally valid in their actual messages and means of salvation etc….

    Obviously all Christian reject Religious or Theological Pluralism…but isn’t Social Pluralism desirable?

    Unless you’re arguing for a “Christian” Nation status… that possible in the NT?…..if not,
    don’t we want a Social Pluralism….a composite society so that the church is able to function…our rights are upheld….but that also means the infidels rights are upheld?

    I’m not being snarky….I’m genuinely asking…..Who is the G(g)od in Under God?

    I’m just a little baffled as to why we would even want that on our coinage.

    Anyway, sorry I didn’t mean to be a stinker…I just stumbled on this……ugh, I just had to say something.




    • Thanks for your comments…I have been inactive too long, which always happens once I get to busy for posting.

      I see a distinction between religious and social/political pluralism. However, I do believe in a “Christian” nation. We all have the “right” to submit to King Jesus. I don’t want to develop this topic here, but I would begin with pointing to Psalm 2, where kings and judges are told to kiss the Son lest He be angry and they perish, being in His way.

      If you really are interested in talking about this feel free to email me, with particular thoughts/challenges…I welcome that. Thanks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: