NBC dumps 'under God' from Pledge at U.S. Open Read more: NBC dumps 'under God' from

[hornadylnl]

I quit flying my flag a few years ago and I've stated why a few times here. It is my opinion that if the founders could come back and see what we've done with their blood and sacrifice, they'd take our flags away.

Besides flying a flag, what are WE doing to preserve our liberty? Talk, vote, fly a flag? Cry about our loss of liberties but clamor for more government when it benefits us? Why do we deserve an ownership share of that flag when we are unwilling to put in the sacrifice that our founders did to bring us that flag?

For the last 100 years, we as a nation have done nothing but talk. Talk is cheap but even China isn't buying it. I no longer fly the flag because I don't feel I'm worthy to. I won't dishonor our founders by doing so. WE can recite the pledge, sing the national anthem, and fly the flag. All the while, our government at all levels are trampling our rights. In many case we clamor for their lordship over us.

 

[UncleMike]

I quit flying my flag a few years ago and I've stated why a few times here. It is my opinion that if the founders could come back and see what we've done with their blood and sacrifice, they'd take our flags away.

Besides flying a flag, what are WE doing to preserve our liberty? Talk, vote, fly a flag? Cry about our loss of liberties but clamor for more government when it benefits us? Why do we deserve an ownership share of that flag when we are unwilling to put in the sacrifice that our founders did to bring us that flag?

For the last 100 years, we as a nation have done nothing but talk. Talk is cheap but even China isn't buying it. I no longer fly the flag because I don't feel I'm worthy to. I won't dishonor our founders by doing so. WE can recite the pledge, sing the national anthem, and fly the flag. All the while, our government at all levels are trampling our rights. In many case we clamor for their lordship over us.

Uhhhh..........
There was this thing called World War II.
We did a lot more than talk about it.
It was in all the papers at the time.

 

[hornadylnl]

Uhhhh..........
There was this thing called World War II.
We did a lot more than talk about it.
It was in all the papers at the time.

Was I specifically speaking of picking up arms against other nations? If so, you seem to have forgotten a multitude of vets who served in other wars in the last 100 years.

I was referring to the growing state of socialism in this country. SS, welfare, jobs programs, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.

 

[caverjamie]

My two cents - there is no reason to edit that section out. That's really suspicious. If you're broadcasting the pledge, just broadcast the darn thing.

As for which wording is "better" - one day sooner or later we'll all be dead, and (if you agree there is some sort of an after life) we will find out which wording would have been better for us to use. I'll put my faith in God thank you.

I have to say though, if we're not really one nation under God, then why even bother saying it. I'd rather we as a country just changed the pledge and stopped pretending.

 

[Roadie]

He said (relevant portion highlighted):



So I said:



Then you said:



Ok. The highlighted part pretty much describes the groups I referred to. Those groups want it their way or no way. Isn't that pretty much their whole point?

Are you saying that the Tea Partiers are Historical Revisionists? I guess this would really be a whole new thread, but frankly I don't know of any politically active group that are MORE historically accurate in their beliefs than the Tea Party...

 

[Bummer]

Are you saying that the Tea Partiers are Historical Revisionists? I guess this would really be a whole new thread, but frankly I don't know of any politically active group that are MORE historically accurate in their beliefs than the Tea Party...

"Tea Partiers and Historical Revisionists". That's two groups that often overlap.

Many Tea Partiers argue that the US was to be a "Christian Nation" when that is an absolute falsehood. They are sincere, but they are not telling the truth, nor are they interested in real history. Look at Glen Beck's Faith 101 series. All based on fake history books published by David Barton, to be used unscrutinized by well intended but duped home schoolers. All of it was made up of quote mined half-quotes. When one reads the whole quote one sees that the original author meant pretty much the exact opposite of what was presented by Barton, and then Beck. Hisorical Revisionists.

Again, for clarity: Those were meant to be two often overlapping groups.

Still again: Tea Partiers want things their way or no way at all, as Que mentioned (though I do understand he did not mean it that way). Historical Revisionists want things their way or no way. Both groups willingly and unquestioningly believe anything that supports their beliefs. A search for truth and a love of real history have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

 

[Bummer]

... I'd rather we as a country just changed the pledge and stopped pretending.

You mean change it back to the original? I fully support that idea.

 

[Roadie]

"Tea Partiers and Historical Revisionists". That's two groups that often overlap.

Many Tea Partiers argue that the US was to be a "Christian Nation" when that is an absolute falsehood. They are sincere, but they are not telling the truth, nor are they interested in real history. Look at Glen Beck's Faith 101 series. All based on fake history books published by David Barton, to be used unscrutinized by well intended but duped home schoolers. All of it was made up of quote mined half-quotes. When one reads the whole quote one sees that the original author meant pretty much the exact opposite of what was presented by Barton, and then Beck. Hisorical Revisionists.

Again, for clarity: Those were meant to be two often overlapping groups.

Still again: Tea Partiers want things their way or no way at all, as Que mentioned (though I do understand he did not mean it that way). Historical Revisionists want things their way or no way. Both groups willingly and unquestioningly believe anything that supports their beliefs. A search for truth and a love of real history have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

The Library of Congress has many documents in its "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" online exhibit that show that while this country was not meant to be a "Christian only" nation, it was never intended for religion to be completely separate from politics, as is being misinterpreted today..

The Founding Fathers...

• Held Church IN Government buildings
• Had prayer and Bible studies BEFORE Congressional Meetings
• Sanctioned funding for a Bible to be printed, and recommended it to be used to teach kids to read
• [SIZE=-1]proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=-1] made public lands available to groups for religious purposes[/SIZE]

etc..

From the LoC's exhibit..
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Library of Congress Exhibition)

The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

Evidence seems to suggest that the belief that our Country was NOT founded on, and embraced, religious principles, is in fact the real "revisionist history".
(unless you believe the LoC, and its copies of actual documents from the time, to be in error?)

 

[mrjarrell]

Roadie,
In regards to sanctioing a bible. It should be noted that that never happened. Some folks tried to get it done, but it never went anywhere and was, as I recall vetoed, as illegal, as it violated the 1st Amendment. No funds were ever given over for the production of a government sanctioned bible.

 

[Roadie]

Roadie,
In regards to sanctioing a bible. It should be noted that that never happened. Some folks tried to get it done, but it never went anywhere and was, as I recall vetoed, as illegal, as it violated the 1st Amendment. No funds were ever given over for the production of a government sanctioned bible.

According to the LoC site I linked above, you are incorrect..

[SIZE=-1]Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States."

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.[/SIZE]

They have scans of documents from the time, reflecting the above, as well...

 

[Roadie]

The Manhattan Rare Book Company Aitken Bible

"...on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible."

 

[mrjarrell]

The Manhattan Rare Book Company Aitken Bible

Didn't quite happen that way, Roadie. Here's a more scholarly debunking of that particular bit of revisionist history, by Chris Rodda. She lays it out better than I.

Chris Rodda: No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools

 

[Bummer]

According to the LoC site I linked above, you are incorrect..



They have scans of documents from the time, reflecting the above, as well...

I'm at work and do not have the time or documentation to fully refute your above comments. That will come as time allows. And yes, pretty much all of it gets refuted.

The Library Of Congress' display is itself revisionist history. It has been ridiculed, rightly, for leaving out more than it puts in. It would be shameful if those folks were capable of knowing shame.

The only documents the Library Of Congress has in its display, regarding the purchase of bibles, are the requests by the guy who wanted paid to print the bible. He never got paid. They never requested it. They did consider it in an attempt to support manufacturing in our fledgling Nation, but that's all the farther it got. In fact, he lost a lot of money on that printing of the bible, entirely because they never asked and never paid, and the public just didn't buy them. He even went so far as to ask Washington to buy and give his bibles to the troops in lieu of pay. His request was denied. Washington himself did not reply, but had his secretary do it.

Much of the revisionist history you are attempting to pass on is the result of selective interpretation of complicated moments. For example, individuals had prayer and bible study before sessions. The entire Congress did not, nor was it an official function. Religious services were held in some government buildings simply because they were the only buildings large enough to hold more than a hand full of people. They were not official government functions. Days of fasting and thanksgiving were proclaimed for those who did those sort of things. They were no more government functions than recognition of Muslim holy days were official under Bush. The public land issue is also quite complicated. The short version is that they had to because of treaty, and the amount given was extremely small.

I've done my homework, and not just in one place. I've read the entire documents quoted by the revisionists, not just the carefully mined quotes. If you're interested in the whole story, may I suggest you read Liars For Jesus by Chris Rodda. It contains the mined quotes with the entire documents so you can compare.

 

[Roadie]

So, the LoC is in error as well?

The article you linked makes several assumptions, example..

George Washingon:

"Your proposition concerning Mr. Aikin's Bibles would have been particularly noted by me, had it been suggested in season, but the late Resolution of Congress for discharging part of the Army, taking off near two thirds of our numbers, it is now too late to make the attempt. It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."(16)

Chris Rodda:

This letter was nothing more than a polite reply to Dr. Rodgers. It is highly unlikely that Washington would have asked Congress to buy the Bibles, even if the idea had been proposed earlier.

It's a pretty safe bet that Washington would have been far more concerned with paying the soldiers than giving them Bibles.

Convincing arguments are made from both sides, and while certain aspects may be in question, the historical documents as scanned by the LoC, do support that at the very least the Congress approved of the printing of the Aitkens Bible.

My original point, the Aitkens Bible being just one example of many, was that our Founding Fathers did indeed allow religion, if not downright embrace religion, as being involved in Politics.

This does NOT mean they sanctioned ONLY Christianity, as this would have been antithetical to one of the main reasons we split from England. They did not want the Church to run the State, nor did they want the State to run the Church. One being involved in the other, however, was something they were quite comfortable with. A distinction lost on many today.

 

[Roadie]

I'm at work and do not have the time or documentation to fully refute your above comments. That will come as time allows. And yes, pretty much all of it gets refuted.

The Library Of Congress' display is itself revisionist history. It has been ridiculed, rightly, for leaving out more than it puts in. It would be shameful if those folks were capable of knowing shame.

The only documents the Library Of Congress has in its display, regarding the purchase of bibles, are the requests by the guy who wanted paid to print the bible. He never got paid. They never requested it. They did consider it in an attempt to support manufacturing in our fledgling Nation, but that's all the farther it got. In fact, he lost a lot of money on that printing of the bible, entirely because they never asked and never paid, and the public just didn't buy them. He even went so far as to ask Washington to buy and give his bibles to the troops in lieu of pay. His request was denied. Washington himself did not reply, but had his secretary do it.

Much of the revisionist history you are attempting to pass on is the result of selective interpretation of complicated moments. For example, individuals had prayer and bible study before sessions. The entire Congress did not, nor was it an official function. Religious services were held in some government buildings simply because they were the only buildings large enough to hold more than a hand full of people. They were not official government functions. Days of fasting and thanksgiving were proclaimed for those who did those sort of things. They were no more government functions than recognition of Muslim holy days were official under Bush. The public land issue is also quite complicated. The short version is that they had to because of treaty, and the amount given was extremely small.

I've done my homework, and not just in one place. I've read the entire documents quoted by the revisionists, not just the carefully mined quotes. If you're interested in the whole story, may I suggest you read Liars For Jesus by Chris Rodda. It contains the mined quotes with the entire documents so you can compare.

So, you are recommending an anti religious author with an agenda, over the LoC, as a trusted source, while discounting authors with the opposite opinion, because they are religiously biased....

Sorry, you can dispute the LoC exhibit all you want, but unless they are faking the documents from that time, it seems they are the more trusted source, IMO..

 

[Bummer]

So, you are recommending an anti religious author with an agenda, over the LoC, as a trusted source, while discounting authors with the opposite opinion, because they are religiously biased....

Sorry, you can dispute the LoC exhibit all you want, but unless they are faking the documents from that time, it seems they are the more trusted source, IMO..

Speaking of agendas.

Anti-religious? Rodda? Nope, and tsk tsk for tossing the slander. She's a Christian who thinks Jesus is upset at people who lie in His name. I agree. The foreword to her book was written by a Preacher who actually read the book (Shocking, no?) and changed his mind about her and her subject. The truth tends to prevail when one actually bothers to look for it.

Did you study the entire documentation trail? How could you in only a few minutes, and in only one place? You argue that the Congress did vote to buy the Bibles, when in fact they adjourned before the vote. Never happened. They didn't pick up the issue when they reconvened elsewhere. You can look it up if you'd like. Others have. I wonder why the Library Of Congress' display doesn't mention that?

What makes the Library Of Congress above suspicion when the Congress itself is treated, fairly enough, with derision? Could the Library Of Congress not display only those documents that tend to support their chosen agenda? If one hires a revisionist to create a display one gets a revisionist display. No real surprise there.

Regarding your Reagan quote: Poor Ronny. One wonders why he would be unaware of the struggle that went on between the larger churches and our Founders. You see, Madison, Jefferson, and the guys were quite aware of the Church of England's abusive power. A couple of the larger churches in America wanted that same power, for much the same reason. They did some rotten things trying to get it, and fighting over the attempt. Their conduct helped convince the key players that religion had no place in government. Of course, the fact that most of the colonies had a religious requirement to hold office played into it as well. Interestingly, the first known use of the phrase "Separation of Church and State" was made by Roger Williams, a preacher who left Boston and formed Rhode Island and the Providence Plantation, precisely to promote freedom of and from religion - he had been somewhat abused by the official religion's leaders. At the time most Churches were worried that the Government would pick a religion and it wouldn't be theirs, and as a result fully supported separation of church and state. Reagan apparently knew none of this, yet he had an opinion. So Reaganesque.

 

[claybustr]

I didn't read the whole 10 pages so this may be a dup but oh well...

I always enjoyed this from Red Skelton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM

 

[Roadie]

Speaking of agendas.

Anti-religious? Rodda? Nope, and tsk tsk for tossing the slander. She's a Christian who thinks Jesus is upset at people who lie in His name. I agree. The foreword to her book was written by a Preacher who actually read the book (Shocking, no?) and changed his mind about her and her subject. The truth tends to prevail when one actually bothers to look for it.

Did you study the entire documentation trail? How could you in only a few minutes, and in only one place? You argue that the Congress did vote to buy the Bibles, when in fact they adjourned before the vote. Never happened. They didn't pick up the issue when they reconvened elsewhere. You can look it up if you'd like. Others have. I wonder why the Library Of Congress' display doesn't mention that?

What makes the Library Of Congress above suspicion when the Congress itself is treated, fairly enough, with derision? Could the Library Of Congress not display only those documents that tend to support their chosen agenda? If one hires a revisionist to create a display one gets a revisionist display. No real surprise there.

Regarding your Reagan quote: Poor Ronny. One wonders why he would be unaware of the struggle that went on between the larger churches and our Founders. You see, Madison, Jefferson, and the guys were quite aware of the Church of England's abusive power. A couple of the larger churches in America wanted that same power, for much the same reason. They did some rotten things trying to get it, and fighting over the attempt. Their conduct helped convince the key players that religion had no place in government. Of course, the fact that most of the colonies had a religious requirement to hold office played into it as well. Interestingly, the first known use of the phrase "Separation of Church and State" was made by Roger Williams, a preacher who left Boston and formed Rhode Island and the Providence Plantation, precisely to promote freedom of and from religion - he had been somewhat abused by the official religion's leaders. At the time most Churches were worried that the Government would pick a religion and it wouldn't be theirs, and as a result fully supported separation of church and state. Reagan apparently knew none of this, yet he had an opinion. So Reaganesque.

Actually Williams's quote, from 1644, was:
“When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World.”

Sounds more like a religious admonition than a political one to me, but even if it is political, it still seems to be referring to keeping the State out of the Church..

Jefferson said, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0

In context, obviously his intent was to reinforce the fact that the STATE would stay out of the church..

Again, I think you are missing my point, as I said before..

[the Founders] did not want the Church to run the State, nor did they want the State to run the Church. One being involved in the other, however, was something they were quite comfortable with. A distinction lost on many today.

There is a HUGE difference between the involvement of religion and state, and the CONTROL of one over the other, is there not?

 

[J_Wales]

When we forget we are a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.