The following email was sent to me in response to an article I wrote about Michael Newdow, the lawyer who has been trying to use the courts to remove “In God We Trust” from our nation’s currency and “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Dear Mr. DeMar,
You wrote:
Following Newdow’s logic, equality means that America should be officially atheistic. Of course, Newdow would claim that taking “In God We Trust” off U.S. currency is not atheism; it’s neutrality. If God is not acknowledged by our government, then the government is atheistic. Atheism is defined as “no God” (a=no + theos=God).
By that logic, it seems to me that the roads, paper, desks, and all the other objects used by government (except, of course, things such as our money) are atheistic as well. After all, none of those things have “In God We Trust” on them.
So, too, I imagine are the shoes you wear, the toothpaste you use, and the children you bore (when they first arrived, at least).
So, I just wanted to say that we Atheists (who embrace all of our fellow humans) are glad to have you among us.
Here was my response:
Newdow is not making your argument at all. He has taken an action to remove “In God We Trust,” not because he believes that it’s not necessary, but that it’s a fiction and governments should not be involved in promoting fiction. By this action, he claims to be “neutral.” He is not being neutral. That was my point, one you apparently missed even though it’s stated in the article.
Now to your argument. I am not one who believes that a stamp of “In God We Trust” is necessary to identify something as being the result of God’s action or proof of His ownership. That has never been the Christian position, even though some Christians work for some form of stamped identification. I understand their reasons in an age of self-professed secularism, but it’s not necessary. The operating assumption among Christians has always been “In the beginning God” (Gen. 1:1). Everything flows from this operating statement. The Bible does not set out to prove God’s existence. Nothing is possible without it. Without it nothing makes sense.
Even an atheist like you borrows from God’s creation in an attempt to deny God and His creation. In reality, you need God to deny Him. You wouldn’t have a mouth to speak or a first to shake if God did not exist. An atheist is like a child who sits on his father’s lap and slaps him in the face.
There is no accounting for the things of this world without first accounting for God. That’s why it is unnecessary to stamp “God” on everything. Everything is stamped with the operating assumption; that’s why something exists rather than nothing. The Psalmist said as much: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Ps. 19:1–2). Paul said something similar when he addressed the Greek philosophers in Athens:
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’” (Acts 17:24–28)
There are no shoes; there is no toothpaste; there are no offspring without God. The “stuff” used to make shoes and toothpaste was made by God. Evolutionists must believe in spontaneous generation to account for their worldview. One of the first principles of biology is that spontaneous generation does not occur. The ability of humans to “create” is analogous to God creating, except God does not need anything to create in the first place. There is no way to account for the creative elements used to make shoes and toothpaste or the non-physical attributes required to shape nondescript physical elements into something new if atheism is true. We would not be having this discussion if atheism were true. We would not be here.
Then there’s the larger problem of humans who bear children. Given the inability of atheists to account for the “stuff” of the cosmos, the information necessary for inanimate matter to form itself spontaneously into beings capable of reproducing, it’s hard for me to conceive that anyone can be an atheist. Atheists live off of theistic capital.
When atheists can account for the origin of the “stuff” of the cosmos, organized information to make the stuff work, moral precepts to guide its development, and reason to think through the grandeur of the created order, then they may be able to make their case. Of course, in doing so, they will use reason, one of the “things” they can’t account for given materialist assumptions. They can’t do any of these things without first accepting that they live in a world that they can’t explain how it got here and how it works.
In reality, it’s the atheist who must stamp the world with declarations that God does not exist in face of so much contrary evidence. Even the existence of evil is a prime indicator that God’s exists, because without Him, there is no such thing as evil. Anyway, thank you for writing. It gave me the opportunity to put my thoughts on this subject into words.
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
To remove “In GOD we trust” from our money or any government papers,show we as a nation no longer put Him as our provider and our protecter of this nationa\ as leid down by our founders
Remove Him and watch as we crumble before our eyes
If you follow the viewpoint that we need to remove any part of God out of our society we need to take a look at not only the words he is pointing out that he believes are not necessary but we need to take a look at our historical structures. Architecture can find its birth in the worship of God. Whom ever your version of that may be. Lets talk about Temples here, bear with me a minute it will make Sense. Temples are historically on Mountains when an actual building is not constructable. Every Temple represents creation in one way or another. Temples are near or “on” water which represents the abyss, They also are built on a primordial mound or are raised, there is an alter, focal point where sacrifice is presented/given/done. There are no ancient civilizations that do not have an alter. Then there is the holy of holies, the “safe” place where God is. There are many more things but these will suffice for my point. If we must get rid of GOD in our society we must then rid the country of our temples, these include any edifice that is raised up has a general area to give up a sacrifice and a Safe place to go. If we think this through we must get rid of the white house, the libraries, banks and any edifice with stairs leading up to its door as that is part of TEMPLE structure, there are the pillars, too which I did not mention but in a bank you go up stairs through a door give a sacrifice to a teller who takes that to the holy place or vault and there you go. You have been entering temples for your whole life and didnt know it, architecture that was “invented” to worship GOD!
HMMM now how stupid is that?!! Tearing down the White house, Museums, Banks, Libraries… Pretty stupid right?! So we are AMERICANS Right? Why sd we have to worry about pleasing the minority we are NOT a Democracy but a REPUBLIC. It is really too bad that so few can make such problems for the masses but then WE have freedom RIGHT?
merica is the only country in the world with “in God We Trust” officially on its currency. This is why the
$US is among the leading currencies in the world. When we carry even a coin on our person, it is a prayer reminder of the Omnipotent God “in whom we live, and move & have our being.” This is a reminder of ourCreator. # Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)
Atheism is a religion. It expects me to believe that matter can neither be created or destroyed, but was always there. I agree. Except neither of us can prove or disprove the statement! They are religious because, in the end, they possess faith unfounded on fact. Virtually every atheist I’ve ever known had no grasp any of the concepts he spoke about. He wanted us to believe in his religion that was clearly founded on a lack of scientific principles and in the end is a victim of the law of conservation of matter! I am a retired psychologist with the appropriate degrees and licensing, plus I have two other “kicker” graduate degrees in Ancient Oriental Studies and American History. Years ago I taught science and had student teaching in biology. None of my degrees are from sectarian schools and I am not a clergyman. I am a Christian (Roman Catholic). The constitution forbids only the creation of a state religion. I agree. However, please don’t tell us that the Jefferson letter to the Danbury ministers has the force of law and tradition over the same author’s Declaration of Independence! With Sunday church in the Capitol Building for decades, reserved pews in other churches, etc., concurrently, you lose anyone but the most hypothetical, theoretical, and non-constructionist, Supreme Court Justice from the far left.
Michael Newdow feels that since “In God We Trust” is on our currency he is being discriminated against. He is in the minority! He argues tht if God is good why is there evil in the world; why do children die of various diseases; why are people allowed to kill, etc. How do I know this? He told me so. He once asked why , if God is a good God, did he allow children to die in the great flood. He cannot accept the answer. Winning a debate with Michael is impossible since his mind is made up. My Sunday School class in Alabama invited him and he came! Why? Because, he said he’d never been invited before. Did it do him any good, other than learning that some wish for and hope for his salvation? Possible, but not probable, but he did meet a group of people who showed him a different side of life.
I don’t like to get to complicated in this because when you talk to people who don’t believe in God…well they are just absurd. They start to talk logic, like they are going to understand the logic of the creator and ruler of the universe.
Let me ask you this, do they believe in love? Why, love in the true sense isn’t logical, to devote all your feelings to one person, forever! That not logical, yet even atheists fall in love…I think. Or maybe they just tell their partner what they want to hear?
The bottom line is really basic, if you don’t believe in God there is no reason for your existance.
Ha! They still enjoy everything we do admitted or not.
Atheist need to form their own Community so they live the way they want & Leave the Rest of Us alone. I hear there are Islands avaliable to buy That would be an excelent start. Out of sight out of Mind.
Lets not forget what one Great man said;
This short, to the point statement should be read by everyone in AMERICA !
Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on being an AMERICAN in 1907.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
MERRY CHRISTMAS to ALL and to America
As Christians we need to be cautious about how we formulate our identity. Too often in the United States, one’s self-understanding as an American supersedes one’s identity as a Christian. We should not understand ourselves to be Americans (who happen to be Christian), but as Christians (who happen to live in the U.S.).
As an American I can understand why you are drawn to a quote like this one, but as Christians, a quote like the one you’ve posted ought to frighten us for there is no room in it for Christianity. Roosevelt states that “there can be no divided allegiance,” stressing that our allegiance must be wholly to the American flag, nation, and people. However, Christ also warned of divided allegiances, stating that one cannot serve two masters – yet Christ was indicating that our allegiance must be wholly to God. They are both correct; there can be no divided allegiances, and one cannot serve two masters. Roosevelt’s words pit the nation against God. By demanding undivided allegiance to the nation, he thereby makes it into an idol. It competes against God for the place of primacy in shaping our identity and self-understanding. Had first century Christians been told that their undivided allegiance must be to Rome, I cannot imagine that they would have embraced such a statement. I for one must stand against a quote like this one, for my primary allegiance is not to this nation, but to Christ (my King) and his Kingdom. I am not concerned that the will of the president (or of the American people) is carried out, so much as I am that the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. My allegiance is not first to my fellow Americans, but to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of what nation they reside in. To become a Christian is to become part of a global, trans-national people who are all united in Christ. I will strive to be an upright citizen, pray for the leaders of this country, and pray for peace that we may continue to have the freedom to preach the gospel freely. But if there is ever a conflict between what the nation asks of me and what Christ has commanded, I have no doubt with whom my undivided allegiance truly lies.
Gary DeMar’s argument is essentially a version of the First-Cause Argument for the existence of God. There has to be a cause for everything that exists, since the basic stuff of the universe — its fundamental constituents — could not have arisen spontaneously. Without a first cause — an ultimate creator — nothing would exist. Therefore, if the universe exists, God must exist in order to have created it.
Question: If everything requires a first cause — an ultimate creator — then who or what created God? Was there then an earlier God who created the God who created the universe? If the reply is that God himself doesn’t require an explanation, since he is the First Cause, then why by the same logic couldn’t the fundamental constituents of the universe be considered the First Cause. If God is considered eternal, then why can’t the basic constituents of the universe be considered eternal?
In fact, since we have direct evidence for the existence of the universe and its constituents, but no direct evidence for the existence of a god, it makes more sense to regard the fundamental constituents of the universe, rather than a mysterious supernatural being, as the “first” or uncaused cause.
That everything by its nature requires a cause is the false assumption underlying the first-cause argument, because everything is all that exists. If the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something; nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence — the existence of something to act as the cause. Existence does not presuppose causality.
The forms of existence can change and evolve, but existence itself — the basic stuff of the universe — can neither be created nor destroyed, since there is nothing outside of existence to act as the creator or destroyer. Existence, not God, is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains.
WHAT kind of drivel is this? In the beginning, God ———– God is the great I AM, Who is, and was and is to come. Good luck getting people to truly understand the convoluted logic you are trying to pass off.
If I understand you correctly, you’re simply saying that God is eternal. Well, I’m saying that the fundamental constituents of the universe — nature itself — is eternal.
Another problem I have with the concept of God is that it refers to a holy spirit or a holy ghost. Well, I don’t believe in ghosts, holy or otherwise. A ghost is a metaphysical impossibility. A spirit requires a body — a functioning brain and sense organs — in order to exist. When the body dies, its functions cease to exist, including those of its brain and sense organs, and without a functioning brain and sense organs, there can be no consciousness or spirit.
Your observations make perfect sense until you look (backwards) beyond the big-bang, which initiated the laws of nature and time upon which your observations rely. Since time and nature did not exist before the big bang (indeed, the concept of “before” didn’t even exist), then whatever caused the big bang was both supernatural and timeless. We call Him God.
Your second comment presumes to understand the nature of the mind, as opposed to the biological brain. Congratulations, because no one in the fields of psychology or neurophysiology even pretends to understand the connection. To conclude, as you have, that the mind needs the brain to exist, without even knowing anything about what the mind is or how it works… well there’s a word for that: faith.
John 3:18 ” He that believes is not condemned but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed on the name of the only begotten son of God”
Try being neutral with this and see where it gets you!!
Awesome response!
I must admit that, growing up, the motto “In God We Trust” was a comfort to me, due in large part to my being a Christian and feeling good about my nation expressing faith in — and a relationship to — our Creator. Just writing that, I must confess I feel the same way now. I’d imagine the 90 percent of Americans who favor keeping the “In God We Trust” motto coordinates in large degree with the percentage of our citizens — something over 80 percent — who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
But the plain fact is that the America of 2010 is not the same one as 1864, whose Congress, missing all the southern states, authorized the motto for the first time on a coin (and possibly did so to ascribe the North’s bloody conflict with the South as some divinely guided mission — which happened to kill about 600,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians). Then, nary a non-Christian was expressing religious faith in the halls of Congress or the byways of our country.
Today, take it or leave it, we have a “pluralistic” nation. Citizens who are Hindus believe in a vastly different concept of a god, or gods, including his (or their) being non-interventionist. Jews, of course, believe in a non-trinitarian god. Most dramatic, jihad-believing Muslims (not all Muslims) believe in a god that subdues all dissenters, by force if necessary. They have declared they will subjugate America under sharia law in that god’s name. They “trust” that god to make that goal become real.
So, until America makes a corporate stand to declare “In the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit We Trust” — and lives it — a motto really doesn’t give our nation divine direction. I doubt such a stand will ever happen here. I also now doubt strongly, as opposed to when I was a child, that God actually blesses the United States of America. It is probably just His tool, bringing us closer to His Kingdom, and I pray its fate will more approximate Egypt’s under Joseph’s pharaoh, as opposed to Moses’.
I must admit that, growing up, the motto “In God We Trust” was a comfort to me, due in large part to my being a Christian and feeling good about my nation expressing faith in — and a relationship to — our Creator. Just writing that, I must confess I feel the same way now. I’d imagine the 90 percent of Americans who favor keeping the “In God We Trust” motto coordinates in large degree with the percentage of our citizens — something over 80 percent — who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
But the plain fact is that the America of 2010 is not the same one as 1864, whose Congress, missing all the southern states, authorized the motto for the first time on a coin (and possibly did so to ascribe the North’s bloody conflict with the South as some divinely guided mission — which happened to kill about 600,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians). Then, nary a non-Christian was expressing religious faith in the halls of Congress or the byways of our country.
Today, take it or leave it, we have a “pluralistic” nation. Citizens who are Hindus believe in a vastly different concept of a god, or gods, including his (or their) being non-interventionist. Jews, of course, believe in a non-trinitarian god. Most dramatic, jihad-believing Muslims (not all Muslims) believe in a god that subdues all dissenters, by force if necessary. They have declared they will subjugate America under sharia law in that god’s name. They “trust” that god to make that goal become real.
So, until America makes a corporate stand to declare “In the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit We Trust” — and lives it — a motto really doesn’t give our nation divine direction. I doubt such a stand will ever happen here. I also now doubt strongly, as opposed to when I was a child, that God actually blesses the United States of America. It is probably just His tool, bringing us closer to His Kingdom, and I pray its fate will more approximate Egypt’s under Joseph’s pharaoh, as opposed to Moses’.
One of the beauties of the Presuppositional method is how easily it is woven into conversation. Great response!
The “In God We Trust” and “under God” both not only recognize God but support the belief in the deity.
Removing them is not necessarily atheistic at all. If there were efforts to claim “In No God Do We Trust” or
“Without God” were trying to replace these phrases your argument would hold up better. As it stands now
the efforts are simply to remove these from public use in order to further unite the country. As much as
the religious would counter argue this, not declaring or acknowledging God at all takes ones religious
preferences completely out of the arena when discussing patriotism and a motto that ALL citizens can stand
behind. No American would feel detached from the population if “In God We Trust” was removed from our
money and no American would feel singled out as a member of a minority with “under God” removed from
the pledge. And aren’t both the national motto and our pledge to our country ideally supposed to be things
that ALL AMERICANS should feel proud to participate in? Removing these divisive phrase will only help
unite the country.
Completely missed the point of the article.
I understand what is being argued. All I can add is when you give up an inch, the unbelieving folks take a mile.
We no longer have the Ten Commandments in courts to remind ALL of the law they are defending or breaking. We no longer can pray in our schools. Soon, they will come knocking down our doors saying we can’t pray in our churches, on the street, driving, homes, private Bible studies, etc. This has been long time getting to this point, but the point is to remove reference to God the Creator so new history (again) can be written just failing to allow it. It is not so much what is being done, it is the complete removal of the referral to Our God. Now, we are headed back to the Dark Ages. In America, it may take that real history lesson again to turn our hearts. Father, forgive us for devaluing You.
“Unite” the country how?
There are two sets of people in the world: Those in Christ and those outside of Christ. Sadly, many of those in Christ fail to see they cannot really be united with unbelievers on anything other than a superficial level. This leads to their conceding to the fallen world the right to set the rules of the game. They do not understand that fallen man is set on denying God and his authority any and everywhere they can. If ostensible believers in Christ agree to facilitate that, all the better for their efforts.
Newdow’s goal is to deny God. If he can eliminate any reminders from the public consciousness, he will. It is one less reminder for him. It also servers eliminate a reminder to those who profess belief in God. He is NOT looking for some sort of neutrality in the public square. He is bent on forcing his worldview upon society and squelching anything that would remind him otherwise.
You need halp friend.Denying God is dangerous.
I’d love to see what his response was to that. Atheist in the words of Greg Bahnsen are Cosmic Criminals. They are ever stealing their ways of reasonings, existing, and speaking from the Creator who gave them these very things they reject. It’s the ultimate sense of idolatry. For though they were created by God in their mothers womb (Notice they weren’t aborted but don’t mind others being aborted which is selfish just like a child as you described in your article) they want to take credit for their own existence. As if they are the “Father” of their own spirit. How does the materialist account for words, thoughts, and memory? Is their memory able to be proved by induction or science? Yet they trust they were alive yesterday? Why? You can’t prove it. It’s this type of irrationalism that is championed as intellectualism in our era.
Grace and Peace,
seal
He never did respond. I’ve found that atheists are not used to dealing with the presuppositional apologetic methodology. They like the idea of moral, metaphysical, and epistemological neutrality. The Christian should never let them have it.
Amen Gary. Continue you carry the torch of Truth Dr. Demar. Neutrality is a myth. We know it. They don’t. I’m glad you pointed that out clearly in your address to the gentlemen.
Hail King Jesus,
seal