View Full Version : Pledge of Allegiance, NBC Apolgy
From a forwarded email:
Chris McCloskey - V.P., Communications
NBC Sports
(212) 664-5598
christopher.mccloskey@nbcuni.com
Mr. McCloskey,
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the recording of the Pledge of Allegiance from the U.S.Open, leaving out the words "under God".
I'm guessing you wouldn't condone something so assuming, unpatriotic and insulting...you're probably smarter than that...probably.
However, you being in charge, the buck stops with you. Leaving out these words was not inadvertent or accidental; it was full of purpose.
Can you tell me exactly what purpose the editor of this piece had in mind ?
I'm BCC'ing 300 people with this e-mail, many being Veterans of military service to our country. I'm sure they too will be interested in the explanation.
Don Dignan
D/2/16, 1st Inf Div
1967-68
--------BT-------------
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/nbc-apologizes-for-leaving-under-god-out-of-pledge
On Sunday, NBC removed the words "under God" from a reading of the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of the U.S. Open Golf Championship.
Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard writes the network omitted the phrase "twice during the show's introduction."
Later in the broadcast, NBC apologized for the omission, but as Newsbusters' Mark Finkelstein reports, the network "compounded one omission with another," by failing to mention the phrase they left out: "under God."
According to Finkelstein, NBC's apology went as follows:
NBC ANNOUNCER: We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago. When we did, it was our intent to begin our coverage of this US Open championship wiht a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship, held in our nation's capital for the third time. Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone, and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it.
Continue reading on Examiner.com NBC apologizes for leaving ’under God’ out of Pledge - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/nbc-apologizes-for-leaving-under-god-out-of-pledge#ixzz1Pxk76S4N
Meh...IMO the "under God" verbiage should never have been "added" to the Pledge of Allegience in the first place.
However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
06-21-2011, 19:43
Meh...IMO the "under God" verbiage should never have been "added" to the Pledge of Allegience in the first place.
However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
And this is why Richard doesn't post in violet.
Kyobanim
06-21-2011, 20:53
I'm with ya on that one Richard.
I apologize from the start if this is out of place for me to write.
Our nation was found with God as our foundation. 235 years later, our leaders do not believe in a foundation other then our own power and strength. However, that custom started a long time ago. Possibly people as smart as our politicians do not learn from history?
Lions8
BRAVO-SMASH
06-21-2011, 22:22
Meh...IMO the "under God" verbiage should never have been "added" to the Pledge of Allegience in the first place.
However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Why not? Our country was founded on Christian principals...
I’ll quote The Declaration of Independence:
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Official versions
1892 - "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1892 to 1923 - "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1923 to 1924 - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1924 to 1954 - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1954 to Present - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the Republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the national pledge in 1942. The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the National Exchange Club, Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Lions Club, Rotary Club, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
------BT-------
I'm all in favor of making changes during periods in which change made sense or as required because the poitical landscape has changed. In 1954, I suspect it had alot to do with Russia/CCCP, America, the cold war, communism, McCarthy, etc.
If it is to change again, let's please move forward, not backwards. "God", "...no God", it is what it is. As for me, I'm just grateful we are still a country.
Why not? Our country was founded on Christian principals...
I’ll quote The Declaration of Independence:
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Would Immanuel Kant agree that the purpose of the Enlightenment was to codify for all time religious principles? <<LINK (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html)>>
If the United States was founded on Christian principles, then how does one square some of the decidedly materialistic components of the United States Constitution and the ensuing debates over its ratification?
Why not? Our country was founded on Christian principals...I’ll quote The Declaration of Independence:
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Here's a pretty good summary which primarily uses Holmes' 2006 The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (an excellent read) as its source.
The Revolution of Belief: Founding Fathers, Deists, Orthodox Christians, and the Spiritual Context of 18th Century America
http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
Richard :munchin
Everyone believes in something - even if it's nothing.
Because nothing is something.
The Pledge reminds us of our allegiance to our flag and country.
Its current form includes 'under God'.
Until the powers that be decide to change the wording again, it is what it is.
NBC has no right or authority to edit it.
Do you remember when and where the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't!
Will this be the next version of the Pledge?
'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
Do you remember when and where the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't!
30 May 2011 - Memorial Day ceremony at DFW National Cemetery.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
06-22-2011, 07:47
Do you remember when and where the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't!
Boy Scout meeting last week.
Support your local Scouts.
TR
Allegany County Md. bid opening 3 weeks ago. :D
Sigaba,
Saying or omitting "under God" doesn't seem to violate the Categorical Imperative. :p
greenberetTFS
06-22-2011, 08:27
Meh...IMO the "under God" verbiage should never have been "added" to the Pledge of Allegience in the first place.
However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Richard,
I'm sorry I can't agree with you on this one...........:(:(
Big Teddy :munchin
TrapLine
06-22-2011, 08:56
Do you remember when and where the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't!
Last month at a Town Hall for our local US Congressman.
Given the reputation NBC has earned, I am confident that this was not an oversight. NBC can do what they like; fortunately so can I. We are currently looking at appliances for our future home. General Electric versions will not be considered.
longrange1947
06-22-2011, 09:16
Richard – Sorry don’t agree. God should be in the pledge and your article proves it. The very first of it state categorically – “Given what we currently know, all of the first five presidents and most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers believed in God. Atheism was mostly unknown among the writers of Constitution and was very rare among those of European descent in the 18th- Century.” The rest of the article then tries to show how, as defined now; they were not religious in our sense. So what! They believed in God and God was a part of their lives, and God was a part of the founding of this Nation. I am tired of revisionists trying hard to prove otherwise.
The first amendment states that “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.”
Plain language, congress cannot make an “official” religion, however, they cannot, but now do, prevent me from the free exercise thereof. This nation was formed under god and the Pledge clearly states it. If congress and the nation decide to take it out, fine. But right now it is in there and if the pledge is to be said it should include the entire pledge and not a watered down pledge so that “may not” offend someone.
All religions have a “Supreme Deity”. They are all called by different names, in the US, He is called God, I could care less what others call him.
Call it nationalism, call it elitism, call it whatever, but I believe that if we do not get back on point with our National Identity, then we will lose it all and our Nation will cease to exist.
My 2 cents.
I said the pledge at a meeting last week.
Dozer523
06-22-2011, 09:47
Do you remember when and where the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't! Boy's State last Thursday.Why not? Our country was founded on Christian principals...
I’ll quote The Declaration of Independence:
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Are ya sure the Creator's Christian?
Why not? Our country was founded on Christian principals...
I thought it was Judeo-Christian values.....
The Reaper
06-22-2011, 10:29
Are ya sure the Creator's Christian?
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers thought He was.
TR
Call it nationalism, call it elitism, call it whatever, but I believe that if we do not get back on point with our National Identity, then we will lose it all and our Nation will cease to exist.My 2 cents.
LR,
VERY well said Sir!!!!!!
Holly:munchin
NBC has no right or authority to edit it.Did Congress suspend the first amendment when it authorized the change to the PoA?
How could the creator have been a Christian when Christianity didn't exist when the world was created?
Boy's State last Thursday. Are ya sure the Creator's Christian?
I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers thought He was.
I'm not so sure.
Declaration of Independence
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."
"...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,..."
US Constitution
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Art 2 - Presidential Oath of Office)
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article 6)
"...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." (a commonly used formality of the time of merely signifying the use of the Christian-datd calendar to establish the date vs any of the several others available)
Amendment 1
"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."
With the inclusion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegience and forcing someone (e.g., a student in school no matter their or their family's beliefs) to make such a pledge, did Congress not violate the Founding Father's prohibition against just such an action? :confused:
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" - George Washington
Just six years after the First Amendment became an official part of the Constitution, the U.S. Senate read (in the English language) and ratified a treaty with Tripoli which included in Article 11 the following assertion: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." - James Madison
"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe...That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." - Thomas Paine
A belief in a deity - yes - but a Christian God? :confused:
I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
And then there are those Americans who, for religious beliefs, refuse to pledge their allegience to any sort of Earthly symbol...such as our national flag...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Here's a pretty good summary which primarily uses Holmes' 2006 The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (an excellent read) as its source.
The Revolution of Belief: Founding Fathers, Deists, Orthodox Christians, and the Spiritual Context of 18th Century America
http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
Richard :munchin
The Deism concept espoused here is basically a 1930's form of academic secularism.
I'd suggest Lillback's "Sacred Fire" that discounts this secular approach with writings and actions (footnoted) of the founding fathers rather than assumption based upon one or two observations.
Many of the secular writers did not do their homework as they had preconcieved
findings.... so they minimized academic research in favor of items that supported their position.
Bollers book is accepted by skeptics that deign to make , as an example, Washington a religious skeptic. It is a mainstay of the athiest/secular approach to downplaying our FF's religious aspects.
Lillback takes Bollers work to task and renders it an unscientific attitudinal work. He shows, in Wash words and deeds that Boller fully ignored that which didn't fit his thesis. He takes Bollers primary elements and takes them apart, line by line, with historical evidence.
A lengthy and footnoted to death read but informative.
BRAVO-SMASH
06-22-2011, 13:55
Are ya sure the Creator's Christian?
My creator is a Christian God. I'm sure of that.
How could the creator have been a Christian when Christianity didn't exist when the world was created?
At this period of time, Christianity was well established thus making the creator a Christian God.
GratefulCitizen
06-22-2011, 14:15
All manner of references and quotes concerning the FF can be mined.
Supposed words of George Washington:
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/george-washington-quotes-1.html
Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon. I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me. Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
- Authentic handwritten manuscript book, April 23, 1752
How could the creator have been a Christian when Christianity didn't exist when the world was created?
He is simply God, our Father.
What God teaches is truth, a family order of advancement, some call it the Gospel. Adam, Noah, Moses were the teachers of Gospel truth, as was Jesus, and many of the other prophets, as was John the Baptist.
Those who are baptized, and take upon them the name of Christ are called Christians. $64K question, when was baptism first reported in the old testament?
When old testament prophets were teaching the masses "to take upon the name of God", what was meant by that? What name? Commitment to live my gospel teachings and ordinances? What ordinances?
From my understanding, God has not and does not change, He does not learn anything new, discover something not previously known, thinking so, only leads to wonder, what is it that God does not know, or did not now? The only thing that does change is His family size, ever increasing in numbers. He is continuous, and His love for all mankind is eternal. He created this world, I'm sure not His first, nor will it be his last.
I know no absolute truths, no eternal mysteries, I walk in faith and with hope. I know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or rather, this world orbits a beautiful sun, the epicenter of our solar system. God is the author of truth, His word has no confusion, He is the wise teacher, father, builder, creator. He wrote the laws of science, chemistry, physics. His word moves worlds and set the very existance of the Universe in order.
Now if I could just get my understanding of metallurgy known to the level He has, I'd be set. Chances are, I will not now in this life time. Man, would I like to build a world someday, or sometime.
---------BT-----------
The problem of speaking or talking of religion is that it is so dividing. Our founder fathers may have been "christian" by birth or education, but by no means were they in complete agreement given the number of "churches". What they did have in common was a belief in a "God", and it was this God that gave them curtain rights, given by Him, not by government. And that government could not take it away, or risk an uprising. That is why we have a second amendment.
The current themes today, are science and faith are in conflict, government is the suspreme power with the ability to give and take life, Islam is a relgion of peace, and I'm wrong for being heterosexual and monogamous.
The Deism concept espoused here is basically a 1930's form of academic secularism. I'd suggest Lillback's "Sacred Fire" that discounts this secular approach with writings and actions (footnoted) of the founding fathers rather than assumption based upon one or two observations.
Dr Gregg L. Frazer, Professor at The Master's College (formerly Los Angeles Baptist College), a Christian liberal arts college in Southern California, ( http://www.masters.edu/academics/undergraduate/hispolstud/faculty.aspx ) on the subject:
Review of "Sacred Fire" - http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/gregg-frazer-on-lillbacks-sacred-fire.html
"The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2010/Truth-and-Life-'10/TLC10-Seminar-Frazer-mp3
"The Religious Faith of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2007/Fall-'07/20070910-GreggFrazer-mp3
"The Religion of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2005/Truth-and-Life-'05/11-Seminar-5-Dr-Gregg-Frazer-The-Religion-Of-Americas-Founders-01-20-05-mp3
"America's Religious, but not Christian, Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2003/Truth-and-Life-'03/Seminar-6-Frazer-mp3
Richard :munchin
Dr Gregg L. Frazer, Professor at The Master's College (formerly Los Angeles Baptist College), a Christian liberal arts college in Southern California, ( http://www.masters.edu/academics/undergraduate/hispolstud/faculty.aspx ) on the subject:
Review of "Sacred Fire" - http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/gregg-frazer-on-lillbacks-sacred-fire.html
"The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2010/Truth-and-Life-'10/TLC10-Seminar-Frazer-mp3
"The Religious Faith of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2007/Fall-'07/20070910-GreggFrazer-mp3
"The Religion of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2005/Truth-and-Life-'05/11-Seminar-5-Dr-Gregg-Frazer-The-Religion-Of-Americas-Founders-01-20-05-mp3
"America's Religious, but not Christian, Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2003/Truth-and-Life-'03/Seminar-6-Frazer-mp3
Richard :munchin
I'm not surprised as he's taken the opposite position during his carreer.
I did not find it to be 3rd and 4th hand me down comments as he, Lillback spent 15 years writing this and has many many original documents and first hand observations to support his findings.
Specifically he takes many of Bollers claims and has first hand accounts/writings that show exactly the opposite or that Boller purposely ignored documents to prove a falacious point.
Frasers off hand dismissal is probably as worthy as his own work.
Lets see 1000 pages of text with 800 pages of footnotes/references and he dismisses that in a few sentences. How astute.
My creator is a Christian God. I'm sure of that.
So, are you saying that there is more than one creator??? Is your creator different than the Judeo God?
At this period of time, Christianity was well established thus making the creator a Christian God.
Isn't being Christian God and the Creator being a Christian two different things?
Dr Gregg L. Frazer, Professor at The Master's College (formerly Los Angeles Baptist College), a Christian liberal arts college in Southern California, ( http://www.masters.edu/academics/undergraduate/hispolstud/faculty.aspx ) on the subject:
Review of "Sacred Fire" - http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/gregg-frazer-on-lillbacks-sacred-fire.html
"The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2010/Truth-and-Life-'10/TLC10-Seminar-Frazer-mp3
"The Religious Faith of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2007/Fall-'07/20070910-GreggFrazer-mp3
"The Religion of America's Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2005/Truth-and-Life-'05/11-Seminar-5-Dr-Gregg-Frazer-The-Religion-Of-Americas-Founders-01-20-05-mp3
"America's Religious, but not Christian, Founders" - http://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2003/Truth-and-Life-'03/Seminar-6-Frazer-mp3
Richard :munchin
After looking at Frasers work/comments it's no wonder he dismisses any other viewpoint...it's his whole reason for being and he must find well researched works that espouse the opposite very frightening.
A simple question...if the FF's believed in God then what God was it.
Were they annimists...buddhists etc...and why, on a simple level, did they put so many JudeoChristian elements within our founding documents.
“A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the period’s documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.”
(http://www.apsanet.org/section_327.cfmon
greenberetTFS
06-22-2011, 16:05
Richard – Sorry don’t agree. God should be in the pledge and your article proves it. The very first of it state categorically – “Given what we currently know, all of the first five presidents and most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers believed in God. Atheism was mostly unknown among the writers of Constitution and was very rare among those of European descent in the 18th- Century.” The rest of the article then tries to show how, as defined now; they were not religious in our sense. So what! They believed in God and God was a part of their lives, and God was a part of the founding of this Nation. I am tired of revisionists trying hard to prove otherwise.
The first amendment states that “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.”
Plain language, congress cannot make an “official” religion, however, they cannot, but now do, prevent me from the free exercise thereof. This nation was formed under god and the Pledge clearly states it. If congress and the nation decide to take it out, fine. But right now it is in there and if the pledge is to be said it should include the entire pledge and not a watered down pledge so that “may not” offend someone.
All religions have a “Supreme Deity”. They are all called by different names, in the US, He is called God, I could care less what others call him.
Call it nationalism, call it elitism, call it whatever, but I believe that if we do not get back on point with our National Identity, then we will lose it all and our Nation will cease to exist.
My 2 cents.
I said the pledge at a meeting last week.
Excellent rebuttal..........:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
BRAVO-SMASH
06-22-2011, 16:28
So, are you saying that there is more than one creator??? Is your creator different than the Judeo God?
Isn't being Christian God and the Creator being a Christian two different things?
No. And no.
When “…their Creator…” is used in The Declaration of Independence, I believe it is my Creator (a Judeo-Christian God) that this is referencing. The same as our founding fathers.
greenberetTFS
06-22-2011, 16:47
One thing to keep in mind,all the prophets including Mohammed,Buddha,Confucius and so on,NEVER claimed to be GOD,only JESUS did!.........:):):)
Big Teddy :munchin
After looking at Frasers work/comments it's no wonder he dismisses any other viewpoint...it's his whole reason for being and he must find well researched works that espouse the opposite very frightening.
A simple question...if the FF's believed in God then what God was it.
Were they annimists...buddhists etc...and why, on a simple level, did they put so many JudeoChristian elements within our founding documents.
“A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the period’s documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.”
(http://www.apsanet.org/section_327.cfmon
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/15/04011/4130/Front_Page/Chuck_Norris_Helps_the_NCBCPS_Spread_David_Barton_ s_Lies
Richard :munchin
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews(God's chosen people) offered sacrifices asking for forgiveness for sins, giving honor, or humbly asking for His advice in prayer. Sacrifices were a way they communicated with our Lord. In the New Testament, Jesus( THE Son of God) died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. He was the ULTIMATE sacrifice. "Christian"(the term itself and body of people) was the term used for Jesus's followers. Many God-fearing Hebrews did not believe that Jesus was God's Son. Many did not even believe He was a prophet of some sort. The priests and temple leaders condemned Him a heretic and..well you know the rest of the story.
The point of all that was for the ones asking if their was a difference between the Jewish God and Christian God. THERE IS NOT. He is one and the same. The Alpha and Omega. Was, Is, and Always will be.
Again, hopefully I am not out of place. If so, I express my apologies.
Lions8
The point of all that was for the ones asking if their was a difference between the Jewish God and Christian God. THERE IS NOT. He is one and the same. The Alpha and Omega. Was, Is, and Always will be.
Fail. :eek:
Richard :munchin
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/15/04011/4130/Front_Page/Chuck_Norris_Helps_the_NCBCPS_Spread_David_Barton_ s_Lies
Richard :munchin
Have no input on Chuck Norris but the article you put up is presented by an anti religious web group.
The stats I quoted/found were arrived at by a non affiliated lawyers scholar association looking at the founding documents and their base of origin.
You pick.
ApacheIP
06-22-2011, 17:59
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/15/04011/4130/Front_Page/Chuck_Norris_Helps_the_NCBCPS_Spread_David_Barton_ s_Lies
Richard :munchin
I see your Chris Rodda Blog and raise you one Founding Truth Blog.
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/yes-chris-rodda-our-constitution-is.html
I have read Barton's Original Intent and was put off by alot of it. Barton is quite full of himself and gets it wrong more than right. Rodda rightly takes him to task. However, Rodda appears to be just as wrong about a lot of things as well.
Fail. :eek:
Richard :munchin
Reason for the fail Sir? I am honestly asking for your reason. Not to be a punk.
I see your Chris Rodda Blog and raise you one Founding Truth Blog.
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/yes-chris-rodda-our-constitution-is.html
I have read Barton's Original Intent and was put off by alot of it. Barton is quite full of himself and gets it wrong more than right. Rodda rightly takes him to task. However, Rodda appears to be just as wrong about a lot of things as well.
Interesting argument to be sure but I find it extremely hard to believe that folks cannot see the relationship between the FF's religious experience and the documents they produced. They were all of a Christian upbringing and that bled into their thought process about God given rights/freedoms of the individual as the antithesis to a Monarch's rulers ability to establish rights.
I understand the secular/athiest attempt to diminish that as they find it not to their liking...but what I find offensive is the rewriting/reinterpretation of history in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
Pretty soon Stonewall Jackson will have been an athiest in disguise and Martin Luther King a Gay Rights advocate like the ATF.
ApacheIP
06-22-2011, 18:51
Interesting argument to be sure but I find it extremely hard to believe that folks cannot see the relationship between the FF's religious experience and the documents they produced. They were all of a Christian upbringing and that bled into their thought process about God given rights/freedoms of the individual as the antithesis to a Monarch's rulers ability to establish rights.
I understand the secular/athiest attempt to diminish that as they find it not to their liking...but what I find offensive is the rewriting/reinterpretation of history in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
Pretty soon Stonewall Jackson will have been an athiest in disguise and Martin Luther King a Gay Rights advocate like the ATF.
I disagree with nothing you write. I think most people do see that religious relationship.
Barton, however, went beyond fact and almost created a false reality surrounding the Founders. Almost as if he had to embellish what was already a significant influnce in their lives and thinking. Chris Rodda has spent the last few years in some obsessive compulsive rage to debunk anything and everything Barton or Glen Beck say. IMO neither are very good sources to support or debunk a particular position
For these types of arguments I prefer the source materials as the final arbiter. Barton did spend a ton of time sourcing his conclusions in the book, but his conclusions did not always fit what the source document was saying. Rodda comes across as an angry shrew.
Apache,
I'm not taking that document to task at all. Speaking in general and put your addition in as an illustration of counter point.
Deism has always existed but did not have the gravitas during the founding period that athiests/seculars would like to believe so they find a circumstance/comment and extrapolate to huge proportions.
It reminds me of gay activists attempting to remake historical individuals and tell us how gay they were to support their position today.
Did you know that Gen. Patton was gay because he liked to dress up in tight riding breeches and leather boots! Had nothing to do with the Cav background.
NBC is not how I spell television anyway...
Hagiography over historigraphy...and Parson Weems lives.
And so it goes...
Richard
GratefulCitizen
06-22-2011, 20:02
Whether or not "under God" remains, it would not seem to have much effect on the Judeo-Christian traditions kept within culture or government.
Rather, it is a reflection of how much remains.
I still see blue laws; bad credit records are still purged after 7 years.
There still remain many who have not bowed a knee to secular humanism.
Let the dead bury the dead.
Shake the dust from your feet at the edge of town.
Roguish Lawyer
06-22-2011, 20:11
bad credit records are still purged after 7 years
Just curious, why do you think this is a religious thing?
GratefulCitizen
06-22-2011, 20:14
Just curious, why do you think this is a religious thing?
The Old Testament tradition of forgiving debts after 7 years.
Hagiography over historigraphy...and Parson Weems lives.
And so it goes...
Richard
Let us not exalt nor demean...in the case of Gen. Washington I believe we were blessed to have him in that place and time.
Without his leadership, from any account, we'd of not survived Valley Forge as an army intact...and when offered a kingship by the army he resigned his position....
Calling his personally stated religious beliefs false deminishes the actual man, that is neither hagiography or history. It is falshood. A concerted falshood of recent secular scholars to underwrite their own beliefs.
Fail. :eek:
Richard :munchin
Richard, he is right. The god of the old testament is Jehovah, the god of this world, the creator. Isiah, (an OT prophet), fortold of the coming of Jehovah, that he would be born of the flesh, his name, the Son of God, the Christ. Jesus himself read from the Isiah record while in the temple and fullfilled a prophecy that he would add a new law and redeem the world.
So to say, the God of Judea and the God of Christinity is the same God, is true. The error is in us accepting Christ as the redeemer, the Son or God, or Judea accepting Jesus as the Messiah is in entirely on us.
God the Father instructed Jehovah, (OT), and Jesus (NT), same person, one in spirit, one in flesh to command, there shall be no other God before me, (The Father).
Jesus at no time every asked for us to whorship him, he only commanded us to whorship the Father. We do not pray to Jesus, he commanded us to pray to the Father, as he does,....
Jesus is our brother, he calls us his brothers, his deciples he called brother, a spirit Son of God, as we are, he being the first spirit son of God, and was part of the Godhead before he was born in the flesh. He earned that title because he was obedient. In the creation story, KJV Genisis, 1:26 - God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....". He was speaking not to himself, nor does he have a split personality. He spoke in plural, as one speaks to another, the creation was done, I'm sure by Himself, his Son and maybe even a few others, he being the Father of them all.
Now the question comes, is any of this true or not? Does the Bible record accurately tell of truth or is it all wack-a-do?
Who is to say? Many of my friends are non-beleivers, they like me, defend the right of one another to have an opinion, and I will defend thiers, that makes us Americans. I have a friend, a fellow soldier, retired Tm SGT, that does not believe in God, but we are here because of a big bang, and when we are dead, we are simply dead. He does not treat others well because he believes he was commanded or obligated to do so, he treats people well because it is the right thing to do.
Tribal maybe, but I can accept that. Collectively, we see the advancement of those who are trying to control us, to enslave us, or otherwise take our lives. In that we are united and I call him brother.
I like the advances of science, I beleive in the end, it will come to the same conclusion that religion does, we really don't know much, and what we do know, seems to have the same author.
I'll call him Father, and I will ask all the tough questions when I see him again, "What in the hell were you thinking when you created,....?" I'm sure his response will be, "Just wanted to keep you guessing, watching you has been a real kick, you kids crack me up, your mother has been missing you, welcome home."
Roguish Lawyer
06-22-2011, 20:57
Wet Dog, I love what you just said. Outstanding.
I agree, very consice explanation of a basic Christian tenet
Roguish Lawyer
06-22-2011, 21:33
I'm not Christian, but liked it anyway. :)
This is the part I liked the most:
Who is to say? Many of my friends are non-beleivers, they like me, defend the right of one another to have an opinion, and I will defend thiers, that makes us Americans. I have a friend, a fellow soldier, retired Tm SGT, that does not believe in God, but we are here because of a big bang, and when we are dead, we are simply dead. He does not treat others well because he believes he was commanded or obligated to do so, he treats people well because it is the right thing to do.
Tribal maybe, but I can accept that. Collectively, we see the advancement of those who are trying to control us, to enslave us, or otherwise take our lives. In that we are united and I call him brother.
WD - your views of Judaism, as those of L8, reflect neither the history nor the views of those who practice Judaisism, but those who practice Christianity.
George Washington was, IMO, a truly great man and the right man at the right time to be an active and extremely effective participant in the birth of this nation. However, his personal religious views were his personal religious views, and I fail to see how anyone who understands the most basic tenets of Christianity can say a man who history records as not having been 'confirmed' in 'the church' and having actively avoided communion could be described as being anything but an American - except for political exploitation.
America was founded on the heritage of Western Culture which includes - but is not limited to - elements of a Judeo-Christian influence in spiritual thinking, customs and moral traditions.
As to the Pledge of Allegience, I remain a 'strict constructionist' and not a 'revisionist.'
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Thanks fellas.
It is why religion is one of those tough subjects to talk about because it creates such visceral reactions in others.
Trust me when I say, after many long hours with many of the cloth, in the Vatican, with those who wear the robes often just said, "We don't know."
The same was said of a NY rabbi, when the discussion of Adam, who was asked to sacrifice a burnt offering, his sons Cain, Able, sacrifices accepted vs. not accepted, and what lead to the 'first murder".
We came to the conclusion, over lamb, beet borscht and red wine, that Cain was justifed because Able was tresspassing on Cain's fields. Cain was defending that which was his. Able said, "Look dude, you're wearing the skins of one of my sheep, pay me first, then I'll pay to pass over your fields, blah, blah, blah".
Adam was hoping that he and Eve could just take a trip the Cannon Beach, OR and get away for a few days.
Shit happens.
WD - your views of Judaism, as those of L8, reflect neither the history nor the views of those who practice Judaisism, but those who practice Christianity.
George Washington was, IMO, a truly great man and the right man at the right time to be an active and extremely effective participant in the birth of this nation. However, his personal religious views were his personal religious views, and I fail to see how anyone who understands the most basic tenets of Christianity can say a man who history records as not having been 'confirmed' in 'the church' and having actively avoided communion could be described as being anything but an American - except for political exploitation.
America was founded on the heritage of Western Culture which includes - but is not limited to - elements of a Judeo-Christian influence in spiritual thinking, customs and moral traditions.
As to the Pledge of Allegience, I remain a 'strict constructionist' and not a 'revisionist.'
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Judism in which decade/Century or Millenium?
As for George Washington, perhaps he felt not taking communion from someone who was not ordained from God to offer the sacrament was taking the higher road and reflected more of his personal opinion by his actions then what his constituents thought of him. "Communion be damned, the man in the cloth is not a man of God, I'll wait."
What was asked by the author of Chistianty was, "Believe in the father, call on Him in prayer. Believe in my word, know you are loved, remain faithful, and you will inherit the Kingdom of God."
Whatever helps you get through the night is perfectly ok with me, remain safe.
Your loving brother, Wet Dog
On Georges communion.....communion is a personal decision based upon ones relationship with God...not an automatic event.
Major Popham and General Porterfield wrote that they communed along with then President Washington in NY City.
Mrs.Alexander Hamilton wrote and verbally told her family she communed with President Washington on his inaugeral day 30 Apr 1789
Bishops William Meade and Rev. E.C. M'Guire also reported his communing on mulitple occasions.
So Washington chose to commune or not based upon his personal feelings of grace at the time.
There is no argument that he chose not to commune over an extended period of time but Boller transposes this into the fact that he never sought communion altho there is ample evidence that he did.
Does not seeking communion make one not a Christian, even tho Washington reg attended services, carried a Christian prayerbook with his own prescribed prayers and publicly called on God in prayer at military and political events?
"It is with peculiar satisfaction I can say, that, prompted by a high sense of duty in my attendance on public worship, I have been gratified, during my residence among you, by the liberal and interesting discourses which have been delivered in your church"
George Washington 1797
David Barton shows us that contrast to the current revisionist changes stands perhaps the most concise testimony of George Washington’s faith – that of Nelly Custis, Washington’s adopted daughter. Nelly lived with the Washingtons at Mount Vernon for twenty years, from her childhood until her own marriage. In a letter she wrote to Jared Sparks, a chaplain of Congress, Nelly confirmed Washington’s Christianity: [George Washington] attended church [in Virginia] at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [ – a two or thee hour journey, one way]. [While serving as President i]n New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by [sickness]. [Sunday] afternoon was spent in his own room at home. . . . [and] visiting and visitors were prohibited [on Sundays]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. . . . I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity
It seems to me that George Washington, like Jesus of Nazareth, was a man.
Richard
__
BT
It seems to me that George Washington, like Jesus of Nazareth, was a man.
Richard
__
BT
Right on!
Interesting argument to be sure but I find it extremely hard to believe that folks cannot see the relationship between the FF's religious experience and the documents they produced. They were all of a Christian upbringing and that bled into their thought process about God given rights/freedoms of the individual as the antithesis to a Monarch's rulers ability to establish rights.
I understand the secular/atheist attempt to diminish that as they find it not to their liking...but what I find offensive is the rewriting/reinterpretation of history in the face of such overwhelming evidence.How deeply did those values bleed given the intellectual and moral gymnastics they performed to tolerate the systematic disenfranchisement of women and the practice of human slavery?
How are we going to argue successfully that the religiosity of the founding fathers is a sustainable model for emulation today when we consistently sidestep the above question?
How deeply did those values bleed given the intellectual and moral gymnastics they performed to tolerate the systematic disenfranchisement of women and the practice of human slavery?
How are we going to argue successfully that the religiosity of the founding fathers is a sustainable model for emulation today when we consistently sidestep the above question?
You have to remember though, that prior to the late 19th century, the disenfranchisement of women and slavery were pretty much a world wide accepted practice, regardless of religion.
How deeply did those values bleed given the intellectual and moral gymnastics they performed to tolerate the systematic disenfranchisement of women and the practice of human slavery?
How are we going to argue successfully that the religiosity of the founding fathers is a sustainable model for emulation today when we consistently sidestep the above question?
Of course you are correct. Everything they did is tainted and this country worthless because of slavery. They were Godless heathens.
You have to remember though, that prior to the late 19th century, the disenfranchisement of women and slavery were pretty much a world wide accepted practice, regardless of religion.So now we're saying that British North America was settled, that colonials broke away from England, and established a new government not for the sake of American exceptionalism but rather conformity with the global norm?
If this is the case, then, as the so-called revisionists have argued, the American Revolution was not much of a revolution.
Of course you are correct. Everything they did is tainted and this country worthless because of slavery. They were Godless heathens.QP PRB--
With respect, sarcasm is not going to square the circle nor make the questions going go away unanswered.
If we're going to point convincingly to the founding fathers as the template for addressing contemporary American political, social, intellectual, economic, religious, and cultural issues, we are going to have to construct a useable past that both explains the early republic in its own terms and resonates among present-day Americans.
How deeply did those values bleed given the intellectual and moral gymnastics they performed to tolerate the systematic disenfranchisement of women and the practice of human slavery?
How are we going to argue successfully that the religiosity of the founding fathers is a sustainable model for emulation today when we consistently sidestep the above question?
I'll take a stab at answering that question.....
Jefferson's reasoning was similar to many of his era. White men were viewed as superior as spoken of in Shakespeare's Hamlet (act II, sc 2).
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, a simple economic decision. Slave ownership was not "free" labor, animals or men, had costs as both needed food and shelter.
Jefferson's concern for his slaves sharply limited his income as he felt they should be treated well. He knew that the institution of slavery was wrong, immoral and ultimately limited progress of the nation. He wrote, "We have a wolf by the ears and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go."
He proposed once, some form of deportation, to separate the two races, by force if necessary.
Thomas Jefferson came to the conclusion that there was no more limitations to the intelligence of the black man than that of his own.
I am proud to state, that America was colonized by first those seeking religious freedom. If those deep setted opinions ultimately lead America to follow England and push-off the practice of slavery, then I say, it was the right decision to make.
I'm proud to say also, in my life time, I saw the Civil Rights Act passed. I wonder now, what another 200 years will be for this country, the world as a whole, and if we are even around?
What country, region, time (era), first offered women the right to vote?
I don't know the answer, but I suspect, in part it was Lewis and Clark, 1804, when they asked Sacajawea and York, (Clark's slave), if they, the collective party should stay until winter is over before returning to St. Loius, MO or leave before the weather set in. Both persons voted, and their vote carried equal weight to the Captain's, the other soldiers and conscripts.
But a right to vote was recently fought for, (1776) and a Constitution written and passed several years later, but still in most American's recent memories, felt that the War and post war processes worthy efforts worthwhile. No wonder that out West, an un-known territory recently purchased from France, that we felt all things were possible.
Just my 0.02 cents worth, hope it's close, can I go home now?
If this is the case, then, as the so-called revisionists have argued, the American Revolution was not much of a revolution.
It was not a revolution at all. The King was not overthrown and replaced, and it was never argued that he should be. It was a secession. The Brit's and their colonies continued on their merry way. ;) And, we outstripped them! :D
Pat
It was not a revolution at all. The King was not overthrown and replaced, and it was never argued that he should be. It was a secession. The Brit's and their colonies continued on their merry way. ;) And, we outstripped them! :D
Pat
The only Brit who wanted to go to war was dear King Gorge.
Most brits knew of, or had family in America. We shared a common language, had common traditions, and shared common beliefs, (once again religion). Most just wanted the whole thing to be over and let's get back to having trade once more.
"Can't we all just get along?" - Slave Trader, Planet of the Apes
incarcerated
06-23-2011, 02:19
How deeply did those values bleed given the intellectual and moral gymnastics they performed to tolerate the systematic disenfranchisement of women and the practice of human slavery?
How are we going to argue successfully that the religiosity of the founding fathers is a sustainable model for emulation today when we consistently sidestep the above question?
Those values bled plenty about 90 years after the founding.
The sustainability of that model is an irrelevant question, as the religiosity of the founding fathers is being systematically disenfranchised by the sexism of Women’s Rights and by the legal and culture wars of the Left.
That the Founders’ religious values were not fulfilled by the society of their day to the level of perfection (which, in my understanding of Christianity, is not possible), and the human institution of slavery was present in their time, in no way disqualifies them as a model for emulation. Nor is perfection a fair standard to apply. To judge the Founders based solely on their tolerance is a straw man argument that merely applies our (questionable) contemporary standards and values to another time and place. That is an intellectually dishonest exercise that one can always appear to win.
The thing that was bad about slavery was that it was an impingement on freedom, and not the fact that it was cruel. Today, we have abortion, welfare, high rates of crime and organized criminal enterprise, the two income mortgage, speech codes, racial identity, and low-flush toilets. What makes Tolerance the supreme value by which to judge past times and places? How will our descendants judge us?
It's their TV Station. They should be able to do whatever they want. If people don't like it, don't watch.
Official versions
1892 - "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1892 to 1923 - "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1923 to 1924 - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1924 to 1954 - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1954 to Present - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the Republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the national pledge in 1942. The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the National Exchange Club, Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Lions Club, Rotary Club, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
------BT-------
I'm all in favor of making changes during periods in which change made sense or as required because the poitical landscape has changed. In 1954, I suspect it had alot to do with Russia/CCCP, America, the cold war, communism, McCarthy, etc.
If it is to change again, let's please move forward, not backwards. "God", "...no God", it is what it is. As for me, I'm just grateful we are still a country.
Wet Dog thanks for this and Richard for yours.
My only issue with it, is that a Company edited it out. Not of Nation. I foresee a change with media trying to change our National Anthem and/or Pledge of Allegiance to meet a left agenda. Nothing with the history of the Pledge or Anthem. Definitely nothing doing with religion; agendas is what it’s all about IMHO.
QP PRB--
With respect, sarcasm is not going to square the circle nor make the questions going go away unanswered.
If we're going to point convincingly to the founding fathers as the template for addressing contemporary American political, social, intellectual, economic, religious, and cultural issues, we are going to have to construct a useable past that both explains the early republic in its own terms and resonates among present-day Americans.
That's not what we were discussing...and it is the same point you made earlier in a similar thread...ergo the sarcasm
As to Deism in the FF's experience.
I totally agree there were Deists in that crowd, a minority, but they were there and I'll argue that George W was not one of them. Jefferson.
However, from a diff angle, the Deists still supported the inclusion of the JudeoChristian concepts/wording within the founding documents.
Our foundation documents were not built like a 'drystane' structure...there was a mortar twixt the stones and that mortar was the JudeoChristian experience.
I believe our FF's believed that this experiment would not work without a personal framework of restraint, respect and basic moral rules.
I also believe that our society today has erred in it's secular approach to value systems of choice and that is reflected in the issues we have today....where mob stealing is now a game etc...
That is the reason I get defensive when secularists/athiests attempt to diminish the religious aspect of the founding documents and the writers.
I am not attempting to value/gauge the individual religious aspect of any individual or group thereof (disclaimer).
greenberetTFS
06-23-2011, 10:20
As to Deism in the FF's experience.
I totally agree there were Deists in that crowd, a minority, but they were there and I'll argue that George W was not one of them.
However, from a diff angle, the Deists still supported the inclusion of the JudeoChristian concepts/wording within the founding documents.
Our foundation documents were not built like a 'drystane' structure...there was a mortar twixt the stones and that mortar was the JudeoChristian experience.
I believe our FF's believed that this experiment would not work without a personal framework of restraint, respect and basic moral rules.
I also believe that our society today has erred in it's secular approach to value systems of choice and that is reflected in the issues we have today....where mob stealing is now a game etc...
That is the reason I get defensive when secularists/athiests attempt to diminish the religious aspect of the founding documents and the writers.
I am not attempting to value/gauge the individual religious aspect of any individual or group thereof (disclaimer).
IMHO,I believe you and WD made excellent responses.......;) God bless you both...:)
Big Teddy :munchin
Wet Dog thanks for this and Richard for yours.
My only issue with it, is that a Company edited it out. Not of Nation. I foresee a change with media trying to change our National Anthem and/or Pledge of Allegiance to meet a left agenda. Nothing with the history of the Pledge or Anthem. Definitely nothing doing with religion; agendas is what it’s all about IMHO.
Brother, it is you who has taken a knife to the jugular and placed a finger on the pulse. Wait until corporations, (media outlets, ACLU, etc.) begin changing the words to our Constitution in order to meet a pre-determined agenda. Perhaps they already have? I see no easy outcome unless we begin to directly approach their advances for this "new utopia".
Rome felt deceit from within long before the end. To think the architects of that change never lived long enough to see the outcome, nor experienced any increase in the exchange of wealth from one pile of cash to another.
I'm beginning to push a little harder. Stay on target, remain safe.
Those values bled plenty about 90 years after the founding.
The sustainability of that model is an irrelevant question, as the religiosity of the founding fathers is being systematically disenfranchised by the sexism of Women’s Rights and by the legal and culture wars of the Left.
That the Founders’ religious values were not fulfilled by the society of their day to the level of perfection (which, in my understanding of Christianity, is not possible), and the human institution of slavery was present in their time, in no way disqualifies them as a model for emulation. Nor is perfection a fair standard to apply. To judge the Founders based solely on their tolerance is a straw man argument that merely applies our (questionable) contemporary standards and values to another time and place. That is an intellectually dishonest exercise that one can always appear to win.
The thing that was bad about slavery was that it was an impingement on freedom, and not the fact that it was cruel. Today, we have abortion, welfare, high rates of crime and organized criminal enterprise, the two income mortgage, speech codes, racial identity, and low-flush toilets. What makes Tolerance the supreme value by which to judge past times and places? How will our descendants judge us?I think you're misreading history. First, there were contemporaneous protests against the practice of slavery in America. And some bleeding was done before the American Civil War--by those Americans who had to endure the selective application of self evident truths, the consequences of the ensuing political compromises, the impact of those compromises on American society, culture, and the economy.
IMO, the accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" is ironic. The charge is offered along side the arguments that there was but one "thing" bad about slavery and that the peculiar institution "in no way disqualifies [the founders] as a model for emulation." The latter argument is not only an exercise in rhetorical hyperbole, it is also inconsistent with many of your posts on other topics. The former argument over-simplifies (if not neglects outright) two hundred years of research on and discussion about American slavery.*
As far as your questions regarding the issues of tolerance and historical judgment, my answers are these. The issue is not so much "tolerance" or "perfection" but consistency.
Do we, as a nation, walk the talk we talk overall?
Do we resort to "pragmatic" solutions that are penny wise but pound foolish?
Do we address inconsistencies between our values and our actions in a timely manner?
Do we accept and take ownership the mistakes we've made in the past with the same rigor with which we take credit for what we've done right?
Do we apply "lessons learned" or do we find ourselves having to re-invent the wheel time and again?
Do we evaluate the values and behaviors of other peoples and nations in a manner that is consistent with how we evaluate ourselves?
As for the judgement of history, our descendants will judge us as they see fit. My own preference is that after looking at us, warts and all, they will say of us "Overall, they did the best they could under the circumstances."
__________________________________________________ ______
* Robert William Fogel has offered a four count moral indictment of slavery in America:
It gave one group of people "unrestrained personal dominion over another group of people."
It denied economic opportunity.
It denied slaves citizenship. "American slaves were utterly and permanently debarred in every manner possible from a role in law and government. They were deprived not only of the limited common-law rights of the disenfranchised European laborers, but even of the few rights enjoyed by slaves in the ecclesiastical courts of Spanish colonies."
Slavery denied "self identification."
See Fogel, Robert William Fogel, "Lecture 3: Coming to Terms with the Economic Viability of Slavery," in his The Slavery Debates, 1952-1990: A Retrospective, The Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures in Southern History (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2003), pp. 45-46.
Holyfire23
06-23-2011, 13:47
As for the judgement of history, our descendants will judge us as they see fit. My own preference is that after looking at us, warts and all, they will say of us "Overall, they did the best they could under the circumstances."
Do you believe that this was not the case of our founding fathers? It must be remembered that the ideology that supposedly fueled slavery and disenfranchisement of women also produced the document which would be appealed to in later years in order to bring an end to such practices. History reveals a great struggle between the pro-slavery states and the anti-slavery states. What resulted was a compromise. One that allowed for slavery to continue. Yet the question that should be asked is this, if the compromise had never taken place would a document such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever materialized? If not, then slavery would probably still be happening today, and women would still not be allowed to vote. It seems to me that the founding fathers did the best they could by creating a document that could later be used to abolish things like slavery. Maybe the founding fathers believed it was better to slowly abolish slavery rather than not abolish it at all?
Do you believe that this was not the case of our founding fathers? It must be remembered that the ideology that supposedly fueled slavery and disenfranchisement of women also produced the document which would be appealed to in later years in order to bring an end to such practices. History reveals a great struggle between the pro-slavery states and the anti-slavery states. What resulted was a compromise. One that allowed for slavery to continue. Yet the question that should be asked is this, if the compromise had never taken place would a document such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever materialized? If not, then slavery would probably still be happening today, and women would still not be allowed to vote. It seems to me that the founding fathers did the best they could by creating a document that could later be used to abolish things like slavery. Maybe the founding fathers believed it was better to slowly abolish slavery rather than not abolish it at all?Holyfire23--
I don't know that I agree with the logic of your core argument. On many levels, saying that the founders should get the credit for creating a document that "could later be used to abolish things like slavery" is like crediting FDR for the eventual liberation of Eastern Europe from communism because he compromised over the future of Poland at the Yalta conference. In both cases, American statesmen made decisions that had catastrophic consequences and these outcomes were predicted when the choices were made.
Did a gradualist approach to slavery within a framework of accommodation and compromise represent the best possible outcome at the time? Pro-slavery delegates to the constitutional convention would make this argument when they got home.* Yet, as subsequent years would show, especially in the events leading up to the Second Anglo American War (the War of 1812), Americans would demonstrate an incredible level of tenacity in taking an 'all or nothing' approach to their freedoms.
Also, it is a historical fallacy to see antebellum America in terms of "free" and "slave" states. America was a slave society. Many Americans understood that to get 'north of slavery,' one had to go to Canada.
__________________________________________________ ______
* Source is here (http://www.amazon.com/Slaverys-Constitution-Ratification-David-Waldstreicher/dp/0809094533/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1308861661&sr=8-1).
GratefulCitizen
06-23-2011, 15:44
The wisdom of the FF was in recognizing that they couldn't solve all the problems of their time.
Instead, they established a framework where future generations might have the opportunity to improve the conditions of life, both for themselves and others.
The operative term is "fathers".
They made choices, took risks, and made sacrifices for people they would never know and for results they would never see.
What we do with the gifts bestowed, and the challenges encountered is what will determine future generations' perceptions.
The generation who were young adults during the roaring '20s are not remembered as "the Greatest Generation".
It isn't terribly important (to the force of history) what happens to those of us who are adults now.
We've had our chance.
What matters is whether the "blessings of liberty" are secured for posterity.
The culture war is not about the present, it is about ensuring that future generations have the opportunity to improve their lives and those of others.
We can't guarantee that they will choose wisely.
Neither could the FF guarantee that we would choose wisely.
...On many levels, saying that the founders should get the credit for creating a document that...
....Americans would demonstrate an incredible level of tenacity in taking an 'all or nothing' approach to their freedoms.
The credit goes to God for the creation of America. Many of the participants in the writing of the constitutions, and during periods of debate felt "moved upon by the spirit", in their written dialogue and speach . Thomas Jefferson felt inspired. Christopher Columbus, while facing a angry crew, felt peace the night before sighting land, (yes, chris never made it to US shores, but the west none the less), and recorded God's hand in the event. Personally, he got lucky.
America was chosen by His hand to become independent. Now the burdon on us is, are we deserving to keep it? Do we acknowledge His work, do we do good things? America will be always the first nation to respond to world dangers, the natural disasters that effect other nations, and we are often left to ourselves when we are attacked or face mother natures wrath.
America has become the standard in which many nations have adapted their own constitutions, civil rights, and so forth. If democracy fails here, it fails worldwide.
To think God did not have His hand in it, would be an error on our part.
Holyfire23
06-23-2011, 17:55
Holyfire23--
I don't know that I agree with the logic of your core argument. On many levels, saying that the founders should get the credit for creating a document that "could later be used to abolish things like slavery" is like crediting FDR for the eventual liberation of Eastern Europe from communism because he compromised over the future of Poland at the Yalta conference. In both cases, American statesmen made decisions that had catastrophic consequences and these outcomes were predicted when the choices were made.
Did a gradualist approach to slavery within a framework of accommodation and compromise represent the best possible outcome at the time? Pro-slavery delegates to the constitutional convention would make this argument when they got home.* Yet, as subsequent years would show, especially in the events leading up to the Second Anglo American War (the War of 1812), Americans would demonstrate an incredible level of tenacity in taking an 'all or nothing' approach to their freedoms.
Also, it is a historical fallacy to see antebellum America in terms of "free" and "slave" states. America was a slave society. Many Americans understood that to get 'north of slavery,' one had to go to Canada.
__________________________________________________ ______
* Source is here (http://www.amazon.com/Slaverys-Constitution-Ratification-David-Waldstreicher/dp/0809094533/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1308861661&sr=8-1).
If we can't give credit to the founding fathers for documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then who do we give the credit to?
Those who fought for civil rights and women's suffrage repeatedly pointed to these fundamental documents in order to get their point across. If such documents were never written, there would have been no legal foundation for the civil rights movement or women's suffrage. Such practices were commonplace back in the 1700's and 1800's. Asking people to shut down the slave trade immediately was like asking Americans today to stop buying oil. Not only was it considered counter-cultural, it could potentially result in an economic disaster---at least that was the thinking amongst those who were pro-slavery. Now should the slave trade have been abolished immediately? Absolutely, that would have been the best outcome. But given the cultural contexts of the time, that was impossible. What the founding fathers did was introduce a philosophy that was so radical in the way it viewed humanity that it was revolutionary. This philosophy would continue to grow to a point where the United States would recognize that it applied to minorities and women as well.
I agree 100% that abolishing slavery would have been the right thing to do. But to say that it was possible, I think, is to misinterpret the culture of their time and instead apply our own culture, biased by hindsight, to a late 18th and early 19th century issue. Furthermore, I think it takes away from the good things that the founding fathers brought about and deserve credit for.
If we can't give credit to the founding fathers for documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then who do we give the credit to?
Those who fought for civil rights and women's suffrage repeatedly pointed to these fundamental documents in order to get their point across. If such documents were never written, there would have been no legal foundation for the civil rights movement or women's suffrage. Such practices were commonplace back in the 1700's and 1800's. Asking people to shut down the slave trade immediately was like asking Americans today to stop buying oil. Not only was it considered counter-cultural, it could potentially result in an economic disaster---at least that was the thinking amongst those who were pro-slavery. Now should the slave trade have been abolished immediately? Absolutely, that would have been the best outcome. But given the cultural contexts of the time, that was impossible. What the founding fathers did was introduce a philosophy that was so radical in the way it viewed humanity that it was revolutionary. This philosophy would continue to grow to a point where the United States would recognize that it applied to minorities and women as well.
I agree 100% that abolishing slavery would have been the right thing to do. But to say that it was possible, I think, is to misinterpret the culture of their time and instead apply our own culture, biased by hindsight, to a late 18th and early 19th century issue. Furthermore, I think it takes away from the good things that the founding fathers brought about and deserve credit for.
Good points.
If we asked the founding fathers who should have the credit, what would you suspect their answer would be?
If we can't give credit to the founding fathers for documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then who do we give the credit to?
Those who fought for civil rights and women's suffrage repeatedly pointed to these fundamental documents in order to get their point across. If such documents were never written, there would have been no legal foundation for the civil rights movement or women's suffrage. Such practices were commonplace back in the 1700's and 1800's. Asking people to shut down the slave trade immediately was like asking Americans today to stop buying oil. Not only was it considered counter-cultural, it could potentially result in an economic disaster---at least that was the thinking amongst those who were pro-slavery. Now should the slave trade have been abolished immediately? Absolutely, that would have been the best outcome. But given the cultural contexts of the time, that was impossible. What the founding fathers did was introduce a philosophy that was so radical in the way it viewed humanity that it was revolutionary. This philosophy would continue to grow to a point where the United States would recognize that it applied to minorities and women as well.
I agree 100% that abolishing slavery would have been the right thing to do. But to say that it was possible, I think, is to misinterpret the culture of their time and instead apply our own culture, biased by hindsight, to a late 18th and early 19th century issue. Furthermore, I think it takes away from the good things that the founding fathers brought about and deserve credit for.Holyfire23--
It is one thing to credit the founding fathers for crafting a revolutionary political philosophy and system of government, it is quite another to argue that since A happened before B then A caused B. The argument that the founders deserve credit for the ingenuity and perseverance of civil rights advocates is akin to saying negligent inspectors should be credited when a neighborhood pulls after a public work fails catastrophically. While the founders deserve our respect, praise, and admiration for many of their achievements, I do not agree that their handling of slavery should be on that list of accomplishments.
The decision not to abolish slavery was a choice made by men exercising fee will. While that choice took place in a cultural and economic context, that choice was not determined by culture nor by economic circumstances. In regards to the former, the generalization of a single dominant culture in America at that time runs contrary to our understanding of that era. (The compromises of the constitutional convention reflected an acknowledgement of those differences.)
In regards to the latter, arguing that the history of that era was economically determined is to agree with a materialist approach to American history. Are you saying that you agree with Charles Beard? If the founders were driven primarily by economic considerations, would not their best choices have centered around options that left them under the protection of the British crown rather than to run the considerable risk of fighting a war against one of the greatest powers the world had yet seen or of charting a path of economic and diplomatic neutrality in a geostrategic environment of intense international competition?
In any case, the argument that the early republic was too dependent economically upon slavery is overly broad. While the lower south (specifically, South Carolina and Georgia) insisted upon the importance of slavery during the constitutional convention, the upper south/mid Atlantic states considered a gradualist approach to abolition in conjunction with the removal of blacks from the region.* These differing political preferences reflected the ongoing diversification of the economy at the national, regional, and local levels. While slavery had served as and would continue to stand as a cornerstone of an increasingly dynamic economy, it is not accurate to say that abolition was not possible in the late eighteenth century due to economic reasons.
Third, there was already a deep rooted movement against slavery in the early republic. It was led by the slaves themselves. They did not need the sanction of the founders nor a reading of the DoI, nor the approbation of Pennsylvania <<LINK (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp)>> nor the Constitution to understand their plight nor to desire freedom or to form intellectually and morally sustainable arguments against slavery. (To put it politely, arguing that such was the case demonstrates the continuing influence of U. B. Phillips on our understanding of American history.)
Fourth, to argue that the Constitution provided the documentary framework for the end of slavery and the unrelenting push for equality reflects a selective reading of American history. During the antebellum era, the Constitution was used to defend and to extend slavery and the subjugation of African Americans. In Scot v. Sanford (1857), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution disqualified permanently blacks from American citizenship. (Ah, for the good old days, when jurists did not legislate from the bench .:rolleyes:) In 1860, South Carolina offered a defense of slavery within the context of a strict interpretation the U.S. Constitution and the underlying intent of its framers. This justification was at the center of that state's secession from the United States.** Not for nothing did slaves appeal to the Lord God, Jesus of Nazareth, and Moses rather James Madison in their hours of need.
In regards to your comments about the civil rights movement, the NAACP would probably appreciate your placing jurisprudence at the center of the long march to equality. However, I think such an interpretation is out of step with the historical evidence and the interpretations thereof. (There is more than one type of freedom and more than one way to seek equality.)
Penultimately, your suggestion that I'm applying today's standards to the past reflects a significant misreading of my posts in this thread and more generally on this BB. I have been consistent in my argument that our understanding of the early republic is in flux, and that until eggheads figure things out, it is unwise for conservatives to use the historical legacy of the founding fathers as a source for intellectual and political legitimacy.
Finally, your concern that focusing on some topics "takes away from the good things that the founding fathers brought about and deserve credit for" is actually a rejection of what was arguably their greatest contribution to world history--the notion that reasoned thought and disinterested actions should be at the core of civil society. Your preference for hagiography over history is, in fact, a by product of the historiography that followed. As the late John Hope Franklin put it:In the effort to create an “instant history” with which we could live and prosper, our early historians intentionally placed our early national heroes and leaders beyond the pale of criticism. . . . And this distorted image of them has not only created a gross historical fallacy, but it has also rendered it utterly impossible to deal with our past in terms of the realities that existed at that time. To put it another way, our romanticizing about the history of the late eighteenth century has prevented our recognizing the fact that the founding fathers made serious mistakes that have greatly affected the course of our national history from that time to the present.***
__________________________________________________ ____________
* Lacy K. Ford, Deliver Us From Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 19-20.
** The Scot decision is available here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html); Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, 24 December 1860. This document is available here (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp).
*** John Hope Franklin, Race and History: Selected Essays, 1938-1988 (Baton Rogue, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1990), p. 154.