Fr. Barron comments on A Nation Under God; A Nation that Keeps the Sabbath

[CoryTheRaven]

As a Christian who is not American, I am all for the removal of God from your oaths and money and whatever else. In talking about invoking God as an empty piety or a source of transcendent accountability, you omit the single mostly likely reason why God is invoked: a cynical attempt by the State to legitimize itself by casting authority over the spiritual realm. When people say "God Bless America" (or "God Save the Queen"), it's not a humble prayer. It's an assertion of Divine endorsement.

[roryscanlon]

Yes, totally.

Some of the founding figures of our nation were already certain that only moral virtues rooted in religious observance upheld our Experiment in Governance. Washington, Madison, Hamilton.

We've examples of this appeal "over the head of the king" in our history: Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights movement.

The American Revolution is all about the divine legislator, unlike the French.

But--the ambiguity of Christian or not was there from the beginning.

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

As for marginalising God: Christian regimes have often been very brutal, just as though God did not exist. The system one follows is in itself unimportant, if it does not affect one's conduct. Some Christians are less kind than some Nazis (such as Goering) in treatment of animals - so morals & belief cannot be inextricably linked. A body of upright principles does not mean that those who profess them will be upright. Why must those who have their own principles not be upright ?

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

Explanation by God explains nothing - to say morality comes from God is as crude in its way as saying that plague is caused by God's Wrath. The world is a closed system of relations, so it has no need of a god or supernatural to account for anything. God is not intended for any purpose (unlike creatures) so He is in the strictest sense "use-less". So He certainly can't be used as a device to explain the origin of morals. This has the (*incidental*) benefit of preserving the autonomy of science.

[MQ1611]

If "under God" means civil government under the Roman Catholic Pope (which important elucidation the Catholic priest conveniently refrained from mentioning) then the phrase is absolutely terrifying!

"Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,- this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation." Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 Oy vey. Friend, did I say one word about "civil government under the Pope." Sheesh. It might be wise to listen to the commentary before making your own remarks.

[MQ1611]

@wordonfirevideo

I did listen to your video, closer than you read my comment. Yes true, you said nothing about the pope, but wasn't that a strategic omission on your part? Your video needed a minor "clarification" to put your Catholic commentary in the proper light. 

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 No, it wasn't an omission, strategic or otherwise. I don't want the US government to be under the Pope. But I want all political leaders to realize that there is a objective, transcendent and absolute criterion of justice. Otherwise, in short order, their wills become the criterion of justice and that's dangerous.

[MQ1611]

@wordonfirevideo

I commend your protestant sensibilities, but unfortunately you don't run the "Holy Office." With "Caritas et Veritas" the current Pope is right now calling for a soviet-style socialist world-government. Read his encyclical side-by-side with Revelation 13 and a history of the Inquisition. Then you might understand our concerns.

[wordonfirevideo]

@MQ1611 I don't know how in the world you conclude that my sensibilities are "protestant?!"

[dumpmist]

What if there never was any god, then where _do_ we get our morals from? In the light of evolution and speciation, humans have not always been humans, and will not always stay human. Suppose we evolve a third sex, wouldn't that make god's moral laws for marriage a bit out-dated?

[CarcharodonMeg]

Thumbs up if you think Fr. Barron should do a video about the Holy Rosary!

[Nemesis000000]

Hitler was not atheist, he was a devout, granted terribly misguided, Catholic. Maosim, Stalinism, and Kim Jong-Il worship are of course all analogous with religious systems as well. To bring religious ideas into the government of a state is to invite tyrrany, not protect from it. The founders knew this, which is why they were very clear in having religion have nothing to do with the government. "Under god" in the pledge is heretical to democracy.

[wordonfirevideo]

@Nemesis000000 Absolutely false! Why did Jefferson insist that our rights and equality are grounded in God? And let me see if I have your logic right: some of the most virulent persecutors of religion in history--are actually religious! You've been reading way too much Christopher Hitchens.

[Nemesis000000]

@wordonfirevideo That's exactly what I am saying. Just as most prosecutors of religions throughout history have been other religions, which you wouldn't deny I am assuming. The problem with religion is the absolute obedience to authority backed by blind faith, and beliefs in supernatural claims. Those all apply to, say, North Korea today, or China under Mao. Stalin was trained in seminary so he knew the tricks of religion and employed them in his dominance as well.

[Nemesis000000]

@wordonfirevideo Atheism is entirely lacking in content. Atheists can be evil or good, but not because of their atheism. Most atheists today are libertarian or liberal and would find any totalitarian system abhorrent. The Taliban or the Evangelical right in America have no such worries.

[steelyman40]

@Nemesis000000 I'm afraid you're demonstrating an 'educated by Hollywood' understanding of your own history. There are some great biographies of the founding fathers that you need to check out. Also, the notion that Hitler was catholic...where the F#%@* did you get that one? Put down the Hitchens and read the best biography of Hitler--written by a great historian named Ian Kernshaw. Very unbiased and VERY clear about the antipathy Hitler felt for all religion, including Christianity.

[steelyman40]

@Nemesis000000 Also, I'm compelled to say...it's a bit tiring listening to atheists twist human history to suit their pre-conceived biases. How exactly is this behaviour different from some medievil sophist trying to make an argument for the centrality of the Earth against the weight of Gallileo's findings about the Heliocentric solar system? Disagree if you like, but try to make arguments that are rooted in truth and not some bizarre fantasy! Hitler as catholic!? C'MON! What bullshit!

[Nemesis000000]

@steelyman40 I am not the one distorting history. Yes, Hitler did express some misgivings about Christianity at times, but he also many times spoke of his mission to wipe out the Jews as divinely ordained. Read Mein Campf. Read his speeches. Perhaps you could say it was all propoganda to rally the troops, but that doesn't say anything good about Catholicism at the time either. Anti-semitism was a Catholic prejudice at the time, and he exploited it. "Gott Mit Uns" it said on Nazi belt buckles.

[steelyman40]

@Nemesis000000 First, "Gott Mit Uns" was on German belt buckles in the First World War. Not relevant, but there it is. I've also had the misfortune of reading that rambling screed Mein Kampf (two primary themes were living space and anti-semitism...nothing about christianity except in a very vague sense). I don't deny that there were many Christians who've behaved badly or who held anti-semitic or other horrendous beliefs. Why does that make Hitler Christian? Why is it relevant?

[Nemesis000000]

@steelyman40 Remember we only ever bring it up when people use Hitler as an example of what happens when atheism gets out of control or something. I'm not saying Hitlerism is a result of Christianity, but I am saying it has more to do with Christianity than atheism, and is all about religious dogma and obedience, which can also be said for actual atheism regimes like Stalin, Kim Jong Il etc.

I wish people would stop brining Hitler up, but they do it so I have to respond in kind.

[steelyman40]

@Nemesis000000 We have a similar morning routine I guess...Anyway, my point is twofold: 1) Hitler was EXTREMELY anti-Christian (Bullock, Kernshaw). 2) Whether one believes in God or not is almost beside the point. How is a state harmed by practicing the wisdom brought down by the Judeo-Christian tradition? It's clearly not and many of the institutions that are good in the West have their roots in that tradition. Also, please read Dan Ariely's interesting piece on honesty.

[billcat2]

maybe zeus or atum...or mamon...or...and that's the point.if u positively believe that the "one nation under god" is in reference to JHVH then what would u tell me if i'm a believer in ASTARTE and i wanna be your senator?would u say that i have to look towards JHVH for guidance when i am legislating??or am i not part of the nation if i do not wanna be under JHVH??

[wordonfirevideo]

@billcat2 I think you're just being a bit silly here. As I said in my very first exchange with you, the God I'm talking about is the creator God who is the unconditioned source of justice and the ultimate criterion of good and evil. As long as you believe in that reality, I don't really care what you call him. For the vast majority of Americans, this is the God revealed in the Bible. And I never said a thing about disqualifying anyone from being a citizen of the country!

[billcat2]

@wordonfirevideo Of course you did not talk about disqualifying anyone,Father,you are too savvy for that!! But i think you are being a little disingenuous here.The fact is that every civilization considers their god(s) to be source of justice...Are u honestly trying to say that you'll be okay with a senator/prez who sees Atum, or Astarte,or Ptat, or maat or krishna...as the ultimate criterion of good and evil?I think that you are being disingenuous when you say "I don't care what you call him"

[wordonfirevideo]

@billcat2 If they call the unconditioned ground of being, who creates all finite things and is the criterion of justice, Zeus or Jimmy, I don't really care. It doesn't effect the point I'm making here.

[billcat2]

father Barron,u still have not answered my question:what makes u think that the expression "one nation under God" was referring to JHVH or Allah?

[wordonfirevideo]

@billcat2 It was put into the pledge in the 1950's. Which God do you think it was referring to? Zeus?

[ericrules95]

@wordonfirevideo LOL

[dedicateddad]

Excellent!

What SHOULD be excised from our "Pledge" is the word "Indivisible."

I - personally - refuse to speak it, and instead just remain silent for that beat, as in "...One nation, Under G*d, ... , with Liberty and Justice for all!"

Most never notice, but a couple have, and have asked about it, which opened the door for discussion of history vs. "the official version" and facts vs. the usual statist propaganda.

Try it sometime - if you're of like mind - you might be pleasantly surprised!

[billcat2]

Father Barron seems to be very pleased with the "one nation under God"...but i got one question: What makes you think that this expression refers to the christian God??

[wordonfirevideo]

@billcat2 I mean that unconditioned power which is the transcendent source of justice. Christians believe in this God, as do Muslims and Jews.

[billcat2]

@wordonfirevideo with all due respect,father,u did not answer my question;i know that christians , jews and muslims believe in the same God.The question is: why do think that the expression "one nation under God" refers to that specific God,and not another God from another religion?

[wordonfirevideo]

@billcat2 To which God do you think it's referring? I mean, honestly.

[billcat2]

@wordonfirevideo honestly i have no idea which god it is referring...and that's why i am asking!

[matrixlone]

@billcat2 the god of the bible silly

[wordonfirevideo]

@matrixlone No: you silly.

[spector1991]

Father Barron, can you please explain Exodus 31:15 to me. I don't understand why it says that anyone who is to work on the sabbath is to be put to death by his neighbor.. Isn't that against the ten commandments?? A response from you would be greatly appreciated.

[itslifeisall]

This type of reasoning is dangerous in a democracy that guarantees religious freedom precisely because it impinges on that freedom. It posits, as the father clearly states, that anyone who does not hold the biblical god as a criterion for truth and justice, perhaps an elected official who happens to be Buddhist, cannot be trusted to safely serve their office. This is not only the epitome of arrogance, but the seed of religious tyranny, which can NOT be tolerated in a free an open democracy.

[itslifeisall]

The only criterion for truth and justice beyond the will of the ruler is the will of god?

The authors of the Pledge of Allegiance were inviting tyranny?

What we find in the regime of Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. is a setting aside of free press, why is it not this but the setting aside of God that leads to tyranny? Historical Tibet and Sri Lanka were tyrannical because God was not a criterion for truth and justice?

If this is not a prime example of religiocentric reasoning, I don't know what is.

[beutner]

I saw my first Fr. Barron video about eight weeks ago. I keep waiting for the day he says something, anything, that I don't fully agree with!!!!!

[montetoro]

A few issues: first of all, Fr. Barron seems to enjoy golf -- a Protestant game, embodying the dreariest American upper-middle-class aspirations and values. Secondly, he offers no objection to the spiritually and politically offensive "patriotic" montage; only the omission of the God clause bothers him -- I'm sure God would rather be invoked in a Cheetos commercial. Finally, why pretend that the Christian tradition hasn't also produced despotic regimes? Better apologetics, please!

[wordonfirevideo]

@montetoro Why should I find patriotism offensive? And golf is a Protestant game? What, did Martin Luther invent it? Does it entail belief in justification by grace through faith? And the "Christian tradition" as such doesn't produce tyrannies; tyrants, sometimes acting in the name of the church, produce tyrannies. And I'm the one who has to offer "better apologetics?!"

[montetoro]

@wordonfirevideo Golf is a sport [game] in which respectable, square-jawed men in pink shirts pay servants to haul their luggage across manicured lawns. It's a pastime for Ward Cleaver and John Cheever characters, i.e., not Catholics. We should end this Neuhausian rapprochement with conservative, suburban Protestants and return to our urban ethnic enclaves, where we belong. Yes, I'm trolling you for fun, but I'm also pretty sure I'm right. May the Holy Infant of Atocha bless and keep you!

[wordonfirevideo]

@montetoro Oy vey!

[itslifeisall]

The "philosophical intuitions of the founders" were heavily tilted towards deism, often spoke openly of the rejection of Jesus' divinity, valued reason above faith and had open disdain for organized religion. Many sought spiritual guidance in the observation of the natural world and, I would posit, found in "the laws of nature and of nature's God" a very different "Creator" than that which you attempt to insert into their philosophies. Me thinks they may openly laugh at your proclamations.

[3abdulmesii7]

@itslifeisall The "under God" clause wasn't written by the founding fathers.

[iliveon]

Democracy avoids tyranny. This is well known. The more secular the nation is the more peaceful it is on the global peace index lol

[wordonfirevideo]

@iliveon Stalin's Russia: a totally secular society. Mao's China: a totally secular society. Pol Pot's Cambodia: a totally secular society. Paragons of "peace?" Hardly.

[iliveon]

@wordonfirevideo Do you really want a list of theocracies that are tyrannical and or warmongering? Do you really want this?

[wordonfirevideo]

@iliveon As I've argued, theocracy is not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating a government that acknowledges a moral authority beyond itself.

[iliveon]

@wordonfirevideo Then why the "Stalin's Russia: a totally secular society. Mao's China: a totally secular society.  Pol Pot's Cambodia: a totally secular society. Paragons of "peace?" Hardly."

As if religious nations aren't more plentiful in violence..

Anyways I understand the logic in "acknowledges a moral authority beyond itself," but it seems that this means theocracy. If it doesn't then tell me how it doesn't

[KnightOwl2006]

@iliveon  That may be true in the bizarro universe.

[sumnemo]

@iliveon There exists no such thing as a 'secular' state in a true sense. Certainly not every state acknowledges the Trinity or much less places Him as the originator of liberty and justice. But that hardly means that that a 'secular' state does not elevate something as Absolute Truth. Whether it is race, democracy, the proletariat, or even the state itself. Something will be divinized and require sacrifice. Such states are for all purposes are the most total theocracies imaginable.

[iliveon]

@sumnemo Secular just means for everybody and isn't biased towards a particular religion, a particular god, etc.

[sumnemo]

@iliveon When it comes to gods people aren't neutral or unbiased. When we reject one god it is in favour of another. You want to name a secular state that is unbiased. Even such stalwarts as Canada, the United States or Sweden aren't unbiased. Those states don't embrace the Christian God or Jewish God or the Muslim or Shinto gods because it would mean setting aside the deity of pluralism. That isn't unbiased.

[iliveon]

@sumnemo monotheism is a concept, not anything that can be proved. And for the people who don't believe it and whom are apart of the united states, or anywhere else, we shouldn't be forced to have the Christian God being shoved down our throats when we state national anthems, etc. It should be quite clear, but obviously in 1954, it wasn't.

I mean, Christians in this country think that everyone should have to embrace christian God. Same with Muslims in Islamic countries

[iliveon]

@sumnemo I think its totally appropriate for people to praise and worship everywhere they want including at home, on the bus, in their house, at church, while riding a bike, while in the car, while protesting, etc, just not in the classrooms of PUBLIC schools and on our money that EVERYONE including polytheists, buddhists, etc. Its just not secular. I don't care if this happens in other countries too. Its unconstitutional and is encroaching on our rights

[iliveon]

@sumnemo millions of people's rights damnit lol. We can set aside one god because there are states that embra

[iliveon]

@sumnemo .. that embrace multiple gods. If hindus were in charge and had "in gods we trust" on a so called "Secular" nation, I'm sure you Christians would be ranting and raving. We barely do so, but do you see the point? Its a nation for EVERYONE, thus democracy and secularism. separation of church and state (plus when you have those two together it often leads to national discrimination laws, etc)

[sumnemo]

@iliveon No such thing as a nation for everyone either. Is it a nation for people who reject Democracy or secularism and for those who embrace both? Is it a nation for homosexuals and people who for whatever reason believe homosexual behaviour to be immoral? Or is it a nation for racist bigots and all races? You speak nonsense. A thing can not be both A and not A. I'm starting to think you are merely pulling my chain. That or you are severely deficient in logic.

[iliveon]

@sumnemo Yes to all of those. Use your brain. Reread what you said and reread my answer. Isn't that something like what we have now. We have me and we have you. In the same country. Is this a country for me or is it a country for you? See how stupid you look? I think you have been pulling your own chain, starving your feeble brain from oxygen. Its ok, I'll relax it for you. A secular government doesn't embrace a particular religion and lets people that DIFFER live equally.

[Entropy3ko]

@iliveon @iliveon Secularism is not equal to democracy, I am sorry to burst your bubble of illusion.

Besides look at very secular states (USSR, China, just to mention a past and a present one) I thini there were and are plenty of 'discrimination laws'.

You are living in a fantasy, and then 'believers are gullable'... I think not. Perhaps you should stop reading the often incoherent and irrational atheist manifesto and start using your own head.

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko Look up "secular" and you will feel terribly stupid as the first thing that comes up on wiki is "purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion"

Second line says "A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens EQUALLY REGARDLESS of religion, and claims to AVOID PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. "

You seem ignorant on the subject.

[Entropy3ko]

@iliveon

Too bad you are the ignorant one.

A secular government is one thing, but extreme secularism, which is what clearly YOU support is not democratic or free. If you truly abided to the definition of secularism you are giving, you would not try to eliminate religion from public view as clearly you are tring to.

" A place governed with discriminatory laws based on religion, such as the USSR is therefore not a "secular" state"

'No true Scotsman' fallacy, sorry ;)

---

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko If the government tries to force an religious idea onto people, its not secular. That's what secular stands for. What don't you get here? Ah, you need to repeat it 10 times in your head. Ready?

"A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens EQUALLY REGARDLESS of religion"

"A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens EQUALLY REGARDLESS of religion"

3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 10

K are you done making up terms yet and lies to support your claim

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko "but extreme secularism, which is what clearly YOU support is not democratic or free"

Completely secular is what I support. Which means the government doesn't put religious dogma infront of government buildings, the government doesn't put religious dogma of any kind in PUBLIC schools especially with little children. Completely secular releases the tax payer's dollar from having "God we trust" on it. Something that in a secular society, which we claim to be, isn't supposed to have

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko Tell me where, dumby, that I say I don't want a democracy?

Tell me where, dumby, that I said, I wanted to eliminate religion from public view?

Tell me where I said any of these?

I said any place that is paid for by public funds. That means MY funds, gosh. Are you a bigot about your people that differ from you or what?

Private schools are A. OK. churches are A. OK. Praying at home works, no national day, cus I am apart of the nation. Hospitals, A. OK. Demonstrations A. OK

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko " " A place governed with discriminatory laws based on religion, such as the USSR is therefore not a "secular" state"

'No true Scotsman' fallacy, sorry ;)"

Tell me, genius, what about what I just said was false.

It was an atheistic regime. Similar to the hundreds of religious ones through history. Don't get me started.

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko A place governed with discriminatory laws based on religion, such as the USSR is therefore not a "secular" state. You indeed don't know what you are even talking about. And secularism is not equal to democracy. Did I say this? let's go back and see..

Me: "Its a nation for EVERYONE, thus democracy and secularism. " in regards to a fair nation. Go reread what I said. And I did not equate the two. I was referring to a fair nation that included both. Obviously a working power couple

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko States that want to get rid of religion are not secular. I've already demonstrated your statement to be false. Those are called "tyrannies;" get it right.

And if you want to name nonreligious tyrannies you can, I can vastly beat you down with religious ones. It doesn't quite frankly matter in giving evidence that your God exists and is only a concept. Whom you probably aren't even sincerely praying to. Maybe you just recite what you are used to saying in your head when you pray

[Entropy3ko]

@iliveon Wow! THREE logical fallacies in one post. Well done ;)

perhaps you should go back to the infidels webpage, they have a nice section on logical fallacies... I suggest you read it!

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko Sorry, but if I am stating fact, you lose. Studies show a part of the brain goes idle when praying. Look it up, verifiable, testable, repeatable. Idiot

[iliveon]

@sumnemo And the point I am trying to make, obviously, is that America is majority of the way there, but some people are still lacking a few liberties.

[Entropy3ko]

@iliveon PS: Ironically you are NOT supporting a 'state for everyone' but you are trying to FORCE your views on others.

" A secular government doesn't embrace a particular religion"

But extremist secularism does embrace a undemocratic ideology.

Just like YOU are not democratic, since you want to impose YOUR view against everyone who does not agree with you clearly.

You are just an hypocrit. You do not care about democracy, just about forcing your atheist vews.

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko No I am all about separation of church and state. That is what you call constitutional. You on the other hand seem to be afraid that if God is taken off the dollar, your life will end.

Sorry, but the ones who are unconstitutional and put religion into governments are the ones who don't care about democracy and the ones who don't care about other people's views and are literally FORCING your view onto us. So please, don't turn it ass backwards.

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko You are a fool to think "extreme" secularism means anything but completely secular. Stop making up bullshit words.

Secular-separation of state and religion

That is it. Nothing else needs to be added

The nations you mentioned are what we call tyrannies. These are not secular because they force a particular viewpoint on others. Just like the United States isn't completely secular, because they are forcing a particular viewpoint on others. 

[iliveon]

@Entropy3ko I don't go around saying religions are dangerous do I? I don't go using prejudices against you saying that you are automatically wanting to set up an ideology do I?

I am pressing for constitutionalism. You are pressing for unfairness. That's what you don't get. Sorry, but your argument is done

[greatbookie]

Could a state be based, not on God explicitly, but on transcendental values and the sovereignty of the individual person in the state?

[powereddrive]

It is pious boilerplate. It was added by Eisenhower in an anti-soviet gesture. 

The country's founders did not put it in. James Madison opposed chaplains in the armed services. You may agree or disagree with them but you cannot argue that Eisenhower's insertion of those words has anything at all to do with the legacy of the founders.

[wordonfirevideo]

@powereddrive Yes, it was put in by Eisenhower, but it reflected the philosophical intuitions of the founders. If you doubt me, take a look at the prologue to the Declaration, something along the lines of "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" and "all men are created equal." See what happens to those ideas when you bracket the existence of God.

[powereddrive]

@wordonfirevideo

Undoubtedly what you say is true to an extent because the founding fathers were children of the European Enlightenment, and Europe seems to me an explicitly Christian phenomenon since it is not a geographical reality in the same way that Africa is.

But during the formation of this Republic, what was more important: the Christian heritage of its founders, or the founders' Enlightenment-derived, dogmatic exaltation of reason above all other modes of human understanding?

[wordonfirevideo]

@MrElyBlack Whoa! You're drawing way too many conclusions here, way too fast. I'm not by any means apologizing for the American system!  I'm saying that every government and every culture should be under the judgment of God. The one thing I explicitly praised in our system is our institutionalized skepticism about our leaders. And friend, I want that wedge in between the City of God and the City of Man, because no political system ever fully incarnates the divine justice.

[shieldsheafson]

I live in a constitutional monarchy and I thought about what Fr. Barron had just said. I took a coin from my pocket and with great relief saw embossed on the obverse; 'Elizabeth II Dei Gratias Regina Fides Defendur'.

Phew!

[ShadowLink108]

The relationship between tyranny and secularity is poorly argued for. Look at al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You seem to supposed totalitarian dictatorships are just only secular regimes, that atheism is an evil force. I could easily argue that religious fanatics "under God" (remember "Deus Vult!") are just are easily oppressive and vindictive as the secular regimes. Dictatorship can be both religious and atheistic. Get you facts straights, and not so selective.

[wordonfirevideo]

@ShadowLink108 A theocrat, in the negative sense, is not operating "under God." God is unconditioned love, goodness, and justice. A "religious fanatic" is, ipso facto, not "under God."

[stevenpeterse]

hmmm a tad of an over connection. When i first started living in New Zealand everything was closed on Sunday. People had barbecues instead. It was a good thing, people enjoyed their day off. Now everyone works on every day and it has taken a good thing away from the culture and made our lives poorer for it. Yes at the time we thought sundays were boring but now i miss them, they allowed everyone to take a break.

[matttavares]

It is very thought provoking to wonder what would happen if our nation banned God, so to speak. Even a staunch atheist would agree this would make for a very different country, whether for the better or worse.

My question is, what would happen? I'm reminded of the classic line from the book of Judges, "and everyone did what was right in their own eyes". What would that nation look like? What would be the motivation for cooperating with anyone? I may be called "bad", by what standard?

[magister343]

Hitler loved the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God with Us).

Babylonian kings were also "under god(s)".

Israel demanded a king to be like their neighbors, much to the Prophet Samuel's chagrin. God gave them a king as Punishment for this.

Saturday IS the Sabbath day. The Lord's Day was never meant to be a day of rest, but one of worship, community, and charity work. It only became a day of rest when Constantine made it so in Roman Civil Law. It isn't even clear if that was for Christ or Sol Invictus.

[filthyswit]

"Under God" was not dropped from the Pledge of Allegiance, it was added. NBC was being patriotic by taking us back to the original Pledge.

[SkeenteaEstPotentea]

In Scandinavian countries,which by many metrics have the most open societies and highest standards of living in the world,less than 30% believe in a god.This non-religion is an individual choice(often based on logic and reason)and is from the bottom up,not the top down as in the examples presented here.The countries that are the most religious(often based on faith),Egypt, Indonesia,etc,are some of the most repressive countries with some of the lowest standards of living. Is there a correlation?

[BeingItself]

@SkeenteaEstPotentea

Of course there is a correlation. You just presented the facts. I think you mean "Is there a causal connection"?Whether belief in God causes these societies to be so horrible, or whether horrible societies cause people to believe in God is the interesting question here.

Whatever the answer, belief in God comes out smelling awful. As it should.

[shedininja001]

With that in mind about Tryrants, would you please comment on how God does not fall into such a catagory?

[Childinfaith]

And North Korea!!!!!!!! Down with Kim Jong Ill! Feed your people!

[1r1shCath0l1c2]

Fr. Barron, Have you by any chance seen the HBO miniseries, "John Adams?" If not, you may be interested to check it out. I find it very interesting from a Catholic perspective, as it's a great exploration of man's grappling with questions of government, authority, freedom, conscience and morality, and how these struggles helped give birth to our nation.

[wordonfirevideo]

@1r1shCath0l1c2 Saw it, and loved it.