Mulling over Daryl Stout to STEVE ASHER 18 Sep 2005

Hi Daryl,

SA>Apparently, the "under God" was inserted largely at the insistence
  >of the Knights of Columbus, which got my attention as it is linked
  >with the Knights of the Southern Cross & the International Alliance
  >of Catholic Knights. While most of the work the Knights do here is
  >benign (running retirement villages & nursing homes etc) I do wonder
  >which God they had in mind when inserting those words.

 DS>   I think it was originally done in around 1954...in the United
 DS> States' "McCarthy-ism" stand against Communism, which is atheistic,
 DS> anyway. A senator by the name of Eugene McCarthy spearheaded a
 DS> bunch of paranoia legislation, as it were during this time, from
 DS> what little I remember about American History. The thing is...I
 DS> wasn't even born until 1960, so I obviously could not have
 DS> witnessed it. :)

Yes, it was a different era, I was born in '52, so I grew up with
an awareness of "Reds under the bed", "Yellow Peril",
"West of the
Wall" / "Iron Curtain" etc. The good old days. :)

  >Referendum, and was rejected. I'm not sure that referring to
  >a generic God serves much purpose, unless it is certain that
  >it is a reference to God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son.

 DS>   It's ironic that you can talk about any other religion...but, the
 DS> moment you begin mentioning God and Jesus Christ in the same
 DS> breath, folks come unglued.

SA>I would be interested in knowing more about the motives of those
  >who had "under God" inserted, and in turn about the motives of
  >those who sought to have reciting the Pledge ruled unconstitutional.

 DS>   See above on the "under God". As for the other, the suit was
 DS> filed by an athiest in California, who had earlier been part of a
 DS> divorce from his Christian wife...she got custody of their
 DS> daughter. He was saying that their daughter was "suffering
 DS> irrepairable harm being exposed to the 'under God' deal each day".
 DS> At first, his suits were thrown out...but, I guess he found a
 DS> favorable judge, as it were. To me, it's all part of the great
 DS> apostasy and falling away of the last days before the Rapture.

It works on two levels. The nations are indeed under God the creator,
yet, without acceptance of Jesus Christ, they remain influenced or
controlled by "the god of this world", who will ultimately put his
false messiah in charge... demanding to be worshipped as god.

SA>The Knights of Columbus intend to appeal against the decision.

 DS>   And other "Christian groups" do so as well.

I just looked up the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't see anything
in it that would offend a reasonable person. "God Save The Queen"
was Australia's National Anthem, until it was changed to "Advance
Australia Fair" a couple of decades ago. Most nations have anthems
& tunes & the like, and there is no harm in showing our pride in
our nations, as I think most of us love our respective countries
with their strengths & faults. There is always the danger that
a leader or party will use that patriotism for evil, as has
happened.

SA>While I wouldn't denigrate the various Catholic "Knights"
organisations
  >for their good works, I am wary of "the devotion of the Knights to Our
  >Lady" and the "deep loyalty that the Orders possess for the
person and
  >office of the Holy Father and his lawful representatives" as found in
  >The Alliance Emblem on the International Alliance of Catholic Knights
  >web site ( http:/www.iack.org ). They see themselves as "Apostles of
  >the Third Millennium".

 DS>   I read a book while I was in college over 20 years ago (I'm
 DS> showing my age now )...I think it was called "Daniel And The
 DS> Revelation". In it (and in some of the Gospel Tracts by Jack T.
 DS> Chick (www.chick.com), they refer to the Roman Catholic Church as
 DS> "the Great Whore of the Book Of Revelation".

 DS>   My main bone of contention with them is in the book of Luke, when
 DS> Mary sings the Magnificat, saying "my spirit hath rejoiced in God
 DS> My Saviour". If Mary is without sin (the Catholics term it the
 DS> "Immaculate Conception"...which is NOT Bible Teaching), then WHY
 DS> would she say what she did?? As the apostle John wrote in I John
 DS> 1:10 "If we say we have no sin, we make Him a liar...and His Word
 DS> is not in us".

Again, this returns to the motivations of the "Knights" in having
"under God" inserted into a pledge... which God do they have in
mind?

Mary is seen as the "Mediatrix of all graces", and there is strong
pressure to declare her as "Co-redemptrix", when there is only
one mediator between God and man... Jesus Christ.

I drew attention to the following "infallible" statement in another
echo... "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely
necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to
the Roman Pontiff" - Pope Boniface VII - Unam Sanctam, 1302. To me,
it is an open & shut case of Rome claiming that one must accept its
terms to be saved. I was told that I would need to take "Holy Orders"
in order to know the meaning. :) Peasants like me are not to question,
but just accept whatever those with "Holy Orders" interpret the words
to mean. Funnily enough, I reject the whole concept, regardless of
what spin might be put on the words.

 DS>   My wife left the Catholic church years ago (way before we got
 DS> married...we knew each other as friends for 17 years before we
 DS> married 28 months ago)...and she has no desire to go back,

Very wise.

Cheers, Steve..

---