I am pro-disestablishmentarianism (the doctrine or political position that advocates abrogating the establishment of a church by the state as the official state religion). Constitutionally, and biblically, there exists and should exist a divide between the activities of the church and the activities of the state. This dual world of citizenry for believers has produced much consternation and conflagration over the years. Yet, being citizens of earth and citizens of heaven is clear and unambiguous when derived from Scriptures. Here are a few examples:

-we are to honor the authorities over us for they are ministers of God to restrain evil and keep the social order (Roms. 13:1-3; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17)

-we are also to pray for those who occupy that authority for no authority exists except that which God has established (1 Tim. 2:1-4; Roms. 13:2)

-we are to pray for the welfare of the city and live peaceably in this world (Jer. 29:4-9; 1 Thess. 4:11)

-we are to honor those authorities established by God for all of society as long as they do not conflict with the authority of God’s Word.

-we may disobey government (civil obedience - Acts 4) when government establishes law that prohibits what God commands (prayer; worship; Bible possession, reading, and preaching; proclaiming the gospel; prayer; etc.) or commands what God prohibits (all families with two or more children that become pregnant must have an abortion; all disabled or elderly people should be denied life support, etc.). Then we are called Scripturally to obey God and deny man. Other than that, we are to live honorably under the governmental authority that God has established irrespective of what kind of government polity exists in that nation we reside.

The Issue
This issue of the pledge of allegiance with these facts presented so far:

-A federal judge declared Wednesday that the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools with the words “under God” is unconstitutional (the Pledge with the words "under God" was inserted by Congress in 1954).

-The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

-U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." (Where is this in the constitution?)

-Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of -Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

-Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue. Newdow hopes that will make it more likely the merits of his case will be addressed by the high court. "All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow told The Associated Press. "Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said.

David Limbaugh rightly has said, “I -- and all Christians I know -- am opposed to a government-mandated religion. The very concept is repugnant to Christianity, which is all about freedom of conscience. There is no such thing as forced conversion to Christianity, as the choice of Christianity is a matter of individual will (not discounting God's sovereignty in the process, by the way).

Thankfully, they did not adopt the enlightenment brand of liberty, equality and fraternity -- which amounts to abstract allegiance to freedom without the underlying moral foundations -- because it doubtlessly would have led us down the perilous French path. History has repeatedly shown that naked freedom, not grounded in morality and untempered by the rule of law, leads to survival of the fittest and the extinction of liberties.”

The Sacred -Secular Dichotomy
There has always been the sacred/secular dichotomy in this world. But what is unusual today, is that now religious opinion, conversation and beliefs are divorced from the issues of government, culture and education. The government cannot constitutionally establish any national religion—that is protected by the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances). But that doesn’t mean nor mandate that religious speech should be silenced, stifled or abrogated. As with all speech, religious speech is protected by our constitution. That includes “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance. It doesn’t establish a national religion; it doesn’t specify any particular faith or denomination that people must worship according to. It simply makes a simple statement of the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men.

Take heart on this y’all, for politically this is a nonissue. It has no possibility of garnering any real political support from the Dem’s/liberals—and my guess is, it won’t even get to the Supreme Court or to the floor of Congress for consideration of repeal.

What shall we do in response to this concern?
1. Pray for this judge and the family who has brought the suit (1 Tim. 2:1-4). God does direct the heart of the king (Prov. 21:1); and in this case, the heart of our judges too.

2. The Lord can use this incident to bring the good news of the gospel of sola fide, sola gratia and solus Christus to the family and this judge. Wouldn’t it be tremendous if the Lord granted saving faith to the very ones challenging the mentioning of His name in the public arena? And tha they became witnesses for the Lord and His truth? He can do it... remember the Apostle Paul (Acts 9).

3. Rest in the knowledge that God is sovereign; and the courts are not.

4. All nations are “under God” – whether they recognize it or not. He controls His creatures, government and creation for His glory, pleasure and purposes alone.

What a time we live in for the church to be the church.

Because He lives,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14