Different view of "The Pledge"

Religions > Atheism > Different view of "The Pledge"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"buckeye"
Date:	15 Dec 2007 12:26:53 PM
Object:	Different view of "The Pledge"

You won't see those who fight to keep "under God" in The Pledge bring up
the following:
Christian Manfred writes: Thursday, December, 13, 2007 3:37 PM
History
The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and a Baptist
Minister.
There was no "Under God" in the pledge until June 15, 1954. Senator Joseph
P. McCarthy (Republican) had made "Godless Communist" a sound byte and
everyone was desperate the prove their loyalty.
We don't say "Under God" because of some great devotion to our Creator.
Like everything else in America, it's all about politics.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	15 Dec 2007 05:17:01 PM

"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6378m359q2hpha4mck9t81c96fcqm0l6lh@4ax.com...

It turns out that Abe Lincoln brought us the earliest interation of "nation
under God," in the Gettysburg Address. His use was a bit different -- not
"one nation under God" -- than we have in the Pledge, but a nation under God
nonetheless. Look up the Gettysburg Address ...
Here is the New York Times coverage of the event ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gettys.nyt.jpg

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	23 Dec 2007 04:13:47 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

And your contribution has exactly what to do with this post?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	23 Dec 2007 11:45:12 AM

"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:k6dsm3lm6f6u8nooue7n0matu75nh2e5th@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

And your contribution has exactly what to do with this post?

Only that "under God" was not coined in 1954.
You are aware -- maybe not -- that the Civil War was rooted in the religious
principle that all men are created equal, and treating some as slaves ran
counter to the principle, are you not?
Upon the end of the Civil War, the President of the United States of America
uttered the phrase, "nation shall under God," become united and move on. I
thought you would enjoy a bit of historical background on the subject.
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	23 Dec 2007 02:05:55 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:I8xbj.10045$GV4.2951@trnddc05...

"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:k6dsm3lm6f6u8nooue7n0matu75nh2e5th@4ax.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

And your contribution has exactly what to do with this post?

Only that "under God" was not coined in 1954.

Nobody claimed that it was. It was put into the pledge at that time.

You are aware -- maybe not -- that the Civil War was rooted in the
religious principle that all men are created equal,

A principle of the anti-religious Enlightenment actually. Furthermore the
majority of people in the North did not see the slave as their equal and did
not treat the freed slave as equals after the war.

and treating some as slaves ran counter to the principle, are you not?

It certainly is not a principle found in the Bible, a book that not only
does not condemn slavery but provides rules that apply to the treatment of
slaves.

Upon the end of the Civil War, the President of the United States of
America uttered the phrase, "nation shall under God," become united and
move on. I thought you would enjoy a bit of historical background on the
subject.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	26 Dec 2007 05:18:03 AM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

:|
:|"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:k6dsm3lm6f6u8nooue7n0matu75nh2e5th@4ax.com...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>:|news:6378m359q2hpha4mck9t81c96fcqm0l6lh@4ax.com...
:|>>:|> You won't see those who fight to keep "under God" in The Pledge bring
:|>>up
:|>>:|> the following:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Christian Manfred writes: Thursday, December, 13, 2007 3:37 PM
:|>>:|> History
:|>>:|> The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and a Baptist
:|>>:|> Minister.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> There was no "Under God" in the pledge until June 15, 1954. Senator
:|>>Joseph
:|>>:|> P. McCarthy (Republican) had made "Godless Communist" a sound byte and
:|>>:|> everyone was desperate the prove their loyalty.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> We don't say "Under God" because of some great devotion to our
:|>>Creator.
:|>>:|> Like everything else in America, it's all about politics.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|It turns out that Abe Lincoln brought us the earliest interation of
:|>>"nation
:|>>:|under God," in the Gettysburg Address. His use was a bit different --
:|>>not
:|>>:|"one nation under God" -- than we have in the Pledge, but a nation under
:|>>God
:|>>:|nonetheless. Look up the Gettysburg Address ...
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Here is the New York Times coverage of the event ...
:|>>:|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gettys.nyt.jpg
:|>>:|
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|> And your contribution has exactly what to do with this post?
:|>
:|>
:|
:|Only that "under God" was not coined in 1954.

Which is totally irrelevant to what I originally posted.
But that is over your head.

:|
:|You are aware -- maybe not -- that the Civil War was rooted in the religious
:|principle that all men are created equal, and treating some as slaves ran
:|counter to the principle, are you not?

Once more you show your ignorance jeffy
Some things just never change
Actually, it was not, but obviously you are unaware of that. The civil war
was not about slavery jeffy, it was about a number of things, such as
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
http://americanhistory.about.com/b/2007/04/11/top-five-causes-of-the-civil-war-2.htm
What actually caused the American Civil War? Some people simplistically
answer that it was a fight against slavery. While slavery did have an
important part to play in the lead up to the Civil War, there were other
causes that fed the fight between North and South that finally erupted into
secession and Civil War with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
The top 5 causes were
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
********************************************

:|Upon the end of the Civil War, the President of the United States of America
:|uttered the phrase, "nation shall under God," become united and move on. I
:|thought you would enjoy a bit of historical background on the subject.

Upon the end of the civil War?
Really? Do you have a cite for that?
Up above you said the Gettysburg Address, now you say the end of the war
but didn't give a cite for that one.
You do know of course with regards to the Gettysburg
Address there is controversy about whether or not Lincoln actually said
"under God." You did know that, right? RIGHT???????
There's is a whole slew of articles there about it
You didn't; do your homework, AGAIN jeffy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Did+lincoln+say+so+he%3Bp+me+god+at+gettysburg+&btnG=Search
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	26 Dec 2007 06:58:34 AM

On 26 dec, 12:18, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:

:|
:|"buckeye" <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:k6dsm3lm6f6u8nooue7n0matu75nh2e5th@4ax.com...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|"buckeye" <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>:|news:6378m359q2hpha4mck9t81c96fcqm0l6lh@4ax.com...
:|>>:|> You won't see those who fight to keep "under God" in The Pledge b=

ring

:|>>up
:|>>:|> the following:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Christian Manfred writes: Thursday, December, 13, 2007 3:37 PM
:|>>:|> History
:|>>:|> The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist and a Bapt=

ist

:|>>:|> Minister.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> There was no "Under God" in the pledge until June 15, 1954. Senat=

:|>>Joseph
:|>>:|> P. McCarthy (Republican) had made "Godless Communist" a sound byt=

e and

:|>>:|> everyone was desperate the prove their loyalty.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> We don't say "Under God" because of some great devotion to our
:|>>Creator.
:|>>:|> Like everything else in America, it's all about politics.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|
:|>>:|It turns out that Abe Lincoln brought us the earliest interation of=
:|>>"nation
:|>>:|under God," in the Gettysburg Address. His use was a bit different =

:|>>not
:|>>:|"one nation under God" -- than we have in the Pledge, but a nation =

under

:|>>God
:|>>:|nonetheless. Look up the Gettysburg Address ...
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Here is the New York Times coverage of the event ...
:|>>:|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gettys.nyt.jpg
:|>>:|
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|> And your contribution has exactly what to do with this post?
:|>
:|>
:|
:|Only that "under God" was not coined in 1954.

Which is totally irrelevant to what I originally posted.

But that is over your head.

:|
:|You are aware -- maybe not -- that the Civil War was rooted in the reli=

gious

:|principle that all men are created equal, and treating some as slaves r=

:|counter to the principle, are you not?

Once more you show your ignorance jeffy
Some things just never change
Actually, it was not, but obviously you are unaware of that. The civil wa=

was not about slavery jeffy, it was about a number of things, such as

Top Five Causes of the Civil Warhttp://americanhistory.about.com/b/2007/04=

/11/top-five-causes-of-the-...

What actually caused the American Civil War? Some people simplistically
answer that it was a fight against slavery. While slavery did have an
important part to play in the lead up to the Civil War, there were other
causes that fed the fight between North and South that finally erupted int=

secession and Civil War with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

The top 5 causes werehttp://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/ca=

use_civil_war.htm

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
********************************************

:|Upon the end of the Civil War, the President of the United States of Am=

erica

:|uttered the phrase, "nation shall under God," become united and move on=

.. I

:|thought you would enjoy a bit of historical background on the subject.

...

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~can=

dst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/the=

ocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members=

..tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/gro=

up/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "=

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner=

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************- Tekst ui=

t oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Sorry Buckeye,
Before belittling Jeff Strickland, you should have noticed that
sources disagree and that his remark as such is not untrue.
Wikepedia:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[edit] Usage of "under God"
The words "under God" do not appear in the Nicolay and Hay drafts but
are included in the three later copies (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss).
Accordingly, some skeptics maintain that Lincoln did not utter the
words "under God" at Gettysburg.[68][69] However, at least three
reporters telegraphed the text of Lincoln's speech on the day the
Address was given with the words "under God" included:
"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the
nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no
common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those
words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not
do to say that [Secretary of War] Stanton suggested those words after
Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at
least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery."[70]
The reporters present included Joseph Gilbert, from the Associated
Press; Charles Hale, from the Boston Advertiser;[71] John R. Young,
from the Philadelphia Press (and future Librarian of Congress); and
reporters from the Cincinnati Commercial,[72] New York Tribune,[73]
and New York Times.[73] Charles Hale "had notebook and pencil in hand,
[and] took down the slow-spoken words of the President."[74] He took
down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln's address, and
his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His
associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved
to be at its face value."[75]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
If Lincoln did not insert the term himself, than it was inserted - the
same day! - by the three journalists! So - at the very leasr - Jeff
is right about the day it was first coined!
Of course that does leave your opening posts totaly intact, for it may
or may not have been in Lincoln's speech; it certainily wasn't in the
pledge!
(and for constitutional reasons it shouldn't be)
Try to be a bit nicer to other posters next time around,
For even if you are right, they may not be wrong.
Peter van Velzen
December 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	27 Dec 2007 07:34:25 AM

"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:

:|Sorry Buckeye,
:|Before belittling Jeff Strickland, you should have noticed that
:|sources disagree and that his remark as such is not untrue.

Jeffy has earned every bit of the scorn and belittling people heap upon
him.
I said there was a controversy. I didn't proclaim which side was correct
and which side might not be correct,
I provided a URL which offered a number of articles, probably covering both
sides of that controversy
BTW, just so everyone is clear Wikepedia is nice, handy and often times
interesting reading. It is probably fairly accurate in many cases but
hardly a professional scholastic or academic authority.

:|
:|Wikepedia:
:|=========
:|[edit] Usage of "under God"
:|The words "under God" do not appear in the Nicolay and Hay drafts but
:|are included in the three later copies (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss).
:|Accordingly, some skeptics maintain that Lincoln did not utter the
:|words "under God" at Gettysburg.[68][69] However, at least three
:|reporters telegraphed the text of Lincoln's speech on the day the
:|Address was given with the words "under God" included:
:|
:|"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the
:|nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no
:|common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those
:|words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not
:|do to say that [Secretary of War] Stanton suggested those words after
:|Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at
:|least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery."[70]
:|
:|The reporters present included Joseph Gilbert, from the Associated
:|Press; Charles Hale, from the Boston Advertiser;[71] John R. Young,
:|from the Philadelphia Press (and future Librarian of Congress); and
:|reporters from the Cincinnati Commercial,[72] New York Tribune,[73]
:|and New York Times.[73] Charles Hale "had notebook and pencil in hand,
:|[and] took down the slow-spoken words of the President."[74] He took
:|down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln's address, and
:|his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His
:|associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved
:|to be at its face value."[75]
:|========
:|
:|If Lincoln did not insert the term himself, than it was inserted - the
:|same day! - by the three journalists!

Three Journalist!!!!! Are you saying journalist might do such a thing? Oh
the horror of it all.

:| So - at the very leasr - Jeff
:|is right about the day it was first coined!

No he wasn't if journalists and not Lincoln added the words.
Jeffy said:
"It turns out that Abe Lincoln brought us the earliest interation of nation
under God,"in the Gettysburg Address. His use was a bit different -- not
one nation under God -- than we have in the Pledge, but a nation under God
nonetheless. Look up the Gettysburg Address ..."
Which is totally and completely irrelevant to the original post and which
is wrong if he never said it or if journalists added it later.

I repeat
Jeffy has earned every bit of the scorn and belittling people heap upon
him.
It appears you know nothing about his history here in these newsgroups.
You might want to look that up, then maybe you will understand why certain
things are said to him and about him by a number of people, not just me.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: ""
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	27 Dec 2007 02:28:34 PM

On 27 dec, 14:34, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:

"pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:

:|Sorry Buckeye,
:|Before belittling Jeff Strickland, you should have noticed that
:|sources disagree and that his remark as such is not untrue.

sides of that controversy

BTW, just so everyone is clear =A0Wikepedia is nice, handy and often times=
interesting reading. It is probably fairly accurate in many cases =A0but
hardly a professional scholastic or academic authority.

:|
:|Wikepedia:
:|=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
:|[edit] Usage of "under God"
:|The words "under God" do not appear in the Nicolay and Hay drafts but
:|are included in the three later copies (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss).
:|Accordingly, some skeptics maintain that Lincoln did not utter the
:|words "under God" at Gettysburg.[68][69] However, at least three
:|reporters telegraphed the text of Lincoln's speech on the day the
:|Address was given with the words "under God" included:
:|
:|"Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says 'that the
:|nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.' There was no
:|common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those
:|words but from Lincoln's own lips at the time of delivery. It will not
:|do to say that [Secretary of War] Stanton suggested those words after
:|Lincoln's return to Washington, for the words were telegraphed by at
:|least three reporters on the afternoon of the delivery."[70]
:|
:|The reporters present included Joseph Gilbert, from the Associated
:|Press; Charles Hale, from the Boston Advertiser;[71] John R. Young,
:|from the Philadelphia Press (and future Librarian of Congress); and
:|reporters from the Cincinnati Commercial,[72] New York Tribune,[73]
:|and New York Times.[73] Charles Hale "had notebook and pencil in hand,
:|[and] took down the slow-spoken words of the President."[74] He took
:|down what he declared was the exact language of Lincoln's address, and
:|his declaration was as good as the oath of a court stenographer. His
:|associates confirmed his testimony, which was received, as it deserved
:|to be at its face value."[75]
:|=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
:|
:|If Lincoln did not insert the term himself, than it was inserted - the
:|same day! - by the three journalists!

Three Journalist!!!!! Are you saying journalist might do such a thing? Oh
the horror of it all.

:| So - at the very leasr - Jeff
:|is right about the day it was first coined!

No he wasn't if journalists and not Lincoln added the words.
Jeffy said:

"It turns out that Abe Lincoln brought us the earliest interation of natio=

under God,"in the Gettysburg Address. His use was a bit different -- not
one nation under God -- than we have in the Pledge, but a nation under God=
nonetheless. Look up the Gettysburg Address ..."

Which is totally and completely irrelevant to the original post and which
is wrong if he never said it or if journalists added it later.

:|Of course that does leave your opening posts totaly intact, for it may
:|or may not have been in Lincoln's speech; =A0it certainily wasn't in th=

dst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/the=

ocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members=

..tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/gro=

up/HRSepCnS/

take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "=

page of history is worth a volume of logic." =A0New York Trust Co. v. Eisn=

er,

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
=A0 =A0 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************- Tekst ui=

t oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

You didn't get my message did you?
Try and be nice!
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	29 Dec 2007 01:50:06 PM

"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:

:|>
:|> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
:|
:|You didn't get my message did you?
:|
:|Try and be nice!

"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:

:|Sorry Buckeye,
:|Before belittling Jeff Strickland, you should have noticed that
:|sources disagree and that his remark as such is not untrue.

Three Journalist!!!!! Are you saying journalist might do such a thing? Oh
the horror of it all.

:| So - at the very leasr - Jeff
:|is right about the day it was first coined!

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	23 Dec 2007 01:34:00 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

Only that "under God" was not coined in 1954.

It was added to the pledge in 1954. No one ever claim that the words
"under" and "God" did not exist before then, and that they never
occurred together in colloquial speech.

You are aware -- maybe not -- that the Civil War was rooted in the religious
principle that all men are created equal,

Actually that was a principle of the enlightenment, which was not
religious, but secular. If anything it was almost the antithesis of
"religious"

and treating some as slaves ran counter to the principle, are you not?

Tell it to TJ, who coined the phrase.
Religious people opposed slavery, and religious people supported
slavery, and each was able to pick and choose their Bible verses so as
to make it clear that ONLY their interpretation was Biblical

Upon the end of the Civil War, the President of the United States of America
uttered the phrase, "nation shall under God,"

Actually, that was in the middle of it, and it was his personal
expression. And the President using it in a speech is a lot different
than requiring school children to say it every day.

become united

There will be NO unity over this issue, ever. It is not something
that can be compromised on.

I thought you would enjoy a bit of historical background on the subject.

You providing jalison with historical background is quite a joke.
lojbab
.

User: "Citizen Jimserac"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	24 Dec 2007 05:54:26 PM

On Dec 23, 2:34=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
It was, in fact, some of your postings
that first started me thinking about this
and the more I think about it,
the more I realize that the simplistic stuff
we were fed for generations about Abe Lincoln
and the Civil war is just so much pap.
Ron Paul seems to echo some of this
revisionistic thinking recently regarding Abe.
It begins to appear that we are at the brink of a
new civil war - no, there is no violence yet, the sides
are just being drawn up. But, pardon me if I get
this all wrong, the mists that have been clouding
my view are just starting to clear a little - and the two
sides are those who represent the benevolent but
enforced statism and fascism of today vs. those
who want to restore America to what it was
before Abe came along - a very different sort of
place!
Bob, correct me if I've got it all wrong. I'm in unfamiliar
territory.
Citizen Jimserac
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	25 Dec 2007 08:00:40 AM

Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

It begins to appear that we are at the brink of a new civil war

Not likely.

no, there is no violence yet, the sides are just being drawn up.

Not in any meaningful sense.

But, pardon me if I get
this all wrong, the mists that have been clouding
my view are just starting to clear a little - and the two
sides are those who represent the benevolent but
enforced statism and fascism of today vs. those
who want to restore America to what it was
before Abe came along

If there are two sides, those aren't them. That is because your
"side" has nothing resembling a power base. The Civil War was a
sectional dispute, and each side had a geographical power base.
We have a little closer to what you describe in the theocrat/secular
divide in our society, in that there is some degree of geographical
sectionalism. But as we clearly have seen in the last 4 years, red
states can turn blue, even in the heart of the Bible belt, and that
sort of thing did not happen in the run-up to the civil war.
Libertarians of some sort or another have existed all along in our
society, but they have no power base, and to boot they have an
anarchistic streak that makes them hard to organize. The Internet
fundraising events, while impressive in one sense, are only big when
compared with what hasn't happened before. Even $10 million in one day
is only a million people at $10 a head, and I'm sure some gave a lot
more, and single day events that a million people participate in are
hardly unusual, even if they aren't everyday occurrences.
In the civil war, with a population only 1/10 that of the country
today, each side fielded armies totaling a million men who gave up
their livelihoods (if not their lives) for months and years, not for
just a few Internet-moments. The south, with around 5 million free
citizens, had 20% of that population in arms. And still lost.
To have the viability of the South today, you would need its
geographical cohesiveness, and 80 million people corresponding to the
South's 8 million (one must remember that the South had the economic
clout of 3 million slaves that enabled that society to sustain itself
economically for a couple of years while those million men dropped out
of the economy).

- a very different sort of place!

And not one that very many people REALLY want to go back to. You
could approximate your libertarian paradise, however, by going to
Darfur, or Afghanistan, or Iraq - any third world country where the
government is too weak to enforce its authority.

Bob, correct me if I've got it all wrong. I'm in unfamiliar territory.

I know. Idealistic la-la land is easy to get lost in. I spent my
time there as well (though my ideals hardly match yours, the territory
sounds strangely familiar).
lojbab
.

User: "Citizen Jimserac"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	25 Dec 2007 09:02:17 AM

On Dec 25, 9:00=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:

It begins to appear that we are at the brink of a new civil war

Not likely.

no, there is no violence yet, the sides are just being drawn up.

Not in any meaningful sense.

If there are two sides, those aren't them. =A0That is because your
"side" has nothing resembling a power base. =A0The Civil War was a
sectional dispute, and each side had a geographical power base.

We have a little closer to what you describe in the theocrat/secular
divide in our society, in that there is some degree of geographical
sectionalism. =A0But as we clearly have seen in the last 4 years, red
states can turn blue, even in the heart of the Bible belt, and that
sort of thing did not happen in the run-up to the civil war. =A0

Libertarians of some sort or another have existed all along in our
society, but they have no power base, and to boot they have an
anarchistic streak that makes them hard to organize. =A0The Internet
fundraising events, while impressive in one sense, are only big when
compared with what hasn't happened before. Even $10 million in one day
is only a million people at $10 a head, and I'm sure some gave a lot
more, and single day events that a million people participate in are
hardly unusual, even if they aren't everyday occurrences.

In the civil war, with a population only 1/10 that of the country
today, each side fielded armies totaling a million men who gave up
their livelihoods (if not their lives) for months and years, not for
just a few Internet-moments. =A0The south, with around 5 million free
citizens, had 20% of that population in arms. =A0And still lost.

To have the viability of the South today, you would need its
geographical cohesiveness, and 80 million people corresponding to the
South's 8 million (one must remember that the South had the economic
clout of 3 million slaves that enabled that society to sustain itself
economically for a couple of years while those million men dropped out
of the economy).

- a very different sort of place!

And not one that very many people REALLY want to go back to. =A0You
could approximate your libertarian paradise, however, by going to
Darfur, or Afghanistan, or Iraq - any third world country where the
government is too weak to enforce its authority.

Bob, correct me if I've got it all wrong. =A0I'm in unfamiliar territory.=

I know. =A0Idealistic la-la land is easy to get lost in. =A0I spent my
time there as well (though my ideals hardly match yours, the territory
sounds strangely familiar).

lojbab

I agree, no power base but pardon me for
keep harping on the technology aspect of this,
it seems to me that the Internet is the missing
link that unites those dispersed and hard to organize
as you say.
The numbers of people committed to the civil war
that you cite are impressive but we must recall
that the NORTH too, had its slaves -> hundreds of thousands
or millions of Irish and other immigrants, who came here,
as did all of our ancestors, for a better chance to put
food on the table and make some kind of half decent lives
for themselves and their families. They soon found themselves
standing in vast rows of blue, decimated one by one,
sometimes the better part of entire regiments shredded
by the foolish strategies and inept tactics of incompetent
generals and officers.
That many tens of thousands of them died, often with a display
of the most incredible bravery and courage, over issues that were more
economic
and political than idealogical or moral, only belies the necessity for
us
to re-evaluate and re-examine Lincoln and the false aura of moral
righteousness and lip service to the "Republic" with which
he so cleverly dressed up his image.
Ron Paul is right. There need NEVER have been a civil
war over slavery or any other issue. And using
the freeing of the slaves as a weapon to
bring the South into compliance was not exactly
the most moral approach to the problem either.
You will note that the British took care of the
slavery issue in one fell
swoop, without a shot being fired.
I will keep reading. and thinking.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	25 Dec 2007 02:13:39 PM

Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

That enables organized communication, but not organized action.

The numbers of people committed to the civil war
that you cite are impressive but we must recall
that the NORTH too, had its slaves -> hundreds of thousands
or millions of Irish and other immigrants, who came here,
as did all of our ancestors, for a better chance to put
food on the table and make some kind of half decent lives
for themselves and their families.

They weren't slaves.

They soon found themselves standing in vast rows of blue, decimated one by one,
sometimes the better part of entire regiments shredded
by the foolish strategies and inept tactics of incompetent
generals and officers.

They weren't slaves.
Indeed, one of the distinctive features of the American military has
been the training and capacity of soldiers to act both in teams and as
individuals.

That many tens of thousands of them died, often with a display
of the most incredible bravery and courage, over issues that were more
economic and political than idealogical or moral,

While there were certainly economic issues involved in the civil war,
they aren't the reasons that individuals went to war.
"Political" almost always = "ideological or moral", and certainly so,
if political conflict rises to the level of warfare.
This hasn't always been the case everywhere. Another form of
political organization is the "faction" which tends to be more
pragmatic and based on individual issues, so that factions are
constantly reorganizing; the typical political party in Europe is a
faction rather than a true party, and this is seen by large numbers of
parties in their elections and the great amount of flux that each one
can experience. By comparison, around 70% of the American electorate
is ideologically wedded to a particular political party, and these
voters are quite difficult to get to vote other than a straight party
line.
Still another form is the personality cult. I find it interesting
that the only time libertarians seem to be able to organize (and even
then not on a sustained basis) is as a personality cult behind an
individual like Rand, Gatto, or Paul.

only belies the necessity for us
to re-evaluate and re-examine Lincoln and the false aura of moral
righteousness and lip service to the "Republic" with which
he so cleverly dressed up his image.

Every time I have reexamined Lincoln (and I've studied the civil war
off and on for 25+ years apart from school studies), and every time
leads to my estimation of him rising.
I don't find any trace of "false moral righteousness" (indeed, I think
any such falsity on the part of either side of the war, and it would
have ended much more quickly).

Ron Paul is right.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

There need NEVER have been a civil war over slavery or any other issue.

A lot of better minds than his couldn't find a solution.

And using the freeing of the slaves as a weapon to
bring the South into compliance was not exactly
the most moral approach to the problem either.

Once the war started and escalated into total warfare (which it
clearly had by mid-1862 and the massive death toll at Shiloh), pretty
much any weapon was morally justified if it would end the war more
quickly.
Freeing the slaves was probably one of the most moral weapons possible
in a shooting war. Of course, you and I have clearly different
opinions as to what is moral, which is why all arguments on morality
are a waste of time.

You will note that the British took care of the
slavery issue in one fell swoop, without a shot being fired.

No they did not take care of it in one fell swoop. Wilberforce
campaigned for 20 odd years to end the slave trade, and then another
30 years to actually end slavery. There was a large religious
component to the movement, and at least one major slave revolt (in
Jamaica).
The main difference is that most of the British slaves were held in
colonial territories that had little political power at home, where
the actual decisions were made. By comparison, the South actually
dominated American politics to a greater degree than their population
would indicate, thereby preventing a political solution in the US.
lojbab
.

User: "Citizen Jimserac"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	26 Dec 2007 08:12:29 AM

On Dec 25, 3:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:

That enables organized communication, but not organized action.

I would think that organized action would
be a natural consequence of the organized
communication.

They weren't slaves.

OH, but they WERE!!!
They've just stepped off the boat after
crossing the Atlantic ocean in near
starvation conditions and they were starving
to begin with.
Up comes a "recruiter" offering them a
small sum of money, the possibility
of regular servings of FOOD and a nice
blue uniform and shoes, if they will
only sign their "X" and help to put down
the evil Confederates.

They weren't slaves.

They WERE slaves in every possible
meaning of the word. That they were only
TEMPORARY slaves, or that they were
occasionally given some "pay" and
fed more or less regularly, can
hardly disqualify this attribution.

Indeed, one of the distinctive features of the American military has
been the training and capacity of soldiers to act both in teams and as
individuals.

That many tens of thousands of them died, often with a display
of the most incredible bravery and courage, over issues that were more
economic and political than idealogical or moral,

While there were certainly economic issues involved in the civil war,
they aren't the reasons that individuals went to war.

"Political" almost always = "ideological or moral", and certainly so,
if political conflict rises to the level of warfare.

This hasn't always been the case everywhere. Another form of
political organization is the "faction" which tends to be more
pragmatic and based on individual issues, so that factions are
constantly reorganizing; the typical political party in Europe is a
faction rather than a true party, and this is seen by large numbers of
parties in their elections and the great amount of flux that each one
can experience. By comparison, around 70% of the American electorate
is ideologically wedded to a particular political party, and these
voters are quite difficult to get to vote other than a straight party line.

Agreed. but, destabilizing though it may be,
I believe the faction approach is more appropriate
for the future that is now and that the ideological
parties, who have recently betrayed BOTH their idealogies
for the depredations of the neo-cons are now in the process
of fracturing into many factions- shall we call them
fractious factions, in my opinion a GOOD thing.

Still another form is the personality cult. I find it interesting
that the only time libertarians seem to be able to organize (and even
then not on a sustained basis) is as a personality cult behind an
individual like Rand, Gatto, or Paul.

The campaigns of John Kennedy or
Bobby Kennedy indicate a similar phenomena on
the left.

only belies the necessity for us
to re-evaluate and re-examine Lincoln and the false aura of moral
righteousness and lip service to the "Republic" with which
he so cleverly dressed up his image.

Every time I have reexamined Lincoln (and I've studied the civil war
off and on for 25+ years apart from school studies), and every time
leads to my estimation of him rising.

I don't find any trace of "false moral righteousness" (indeed, I think
any such falsity on the part of either side of the war, and it would
have ended much more quickly).

The America we have today with its Federal Reserve, Income Taxes and
cleverly designed "redistricting" boundaries,
is NOT the America that would have been without Lincoln.
But then again, would the slaves ever have been
freed in that alternate America? Probably in some states
yes and in others no - and then we would not have had
the civil rights gains that we did have - or would the
same civil rights movements and Martin Luther King arisen
and prevailed anyway? I would like to think so.
Citizen Jimserac
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	26 Dec 2007 09:06:58 AM

Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 3:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:

That enables organized communication, but not organized action.

I would think that organized action would
be a natural consequence of the organized
communication.

No.
Obvious examples: targetted junkmail and election propaganda are both
extremely organized communications, but may or may not result in
action, and seldom result in organized action.
Communication is usually necessary for organized action, but it is
hardly sufficient. Most importantly, there isn't a lot of actual
action that can take place ON the Internet, so the problem is one of
turning Internet activity into non-Internet activity.

They weren't slaves.

OH, but they WERE!!!

Only for someone attempting to redefine what a "slave" is for
ideological purposes.
I have to admit that I thought you were going to play a different
ideological redefinition game than you actually did. One classic
Southern argument for slavery called northern industrial workers "wage
slaves", which is just such an ideological redefinition.

They've just stepped off the boat after
crossing the Atlantic ocean in near
starvation conditions and they were starving
to begin with.

That is an assumption that may have been true for some, but probably
was not true for most. After all, they were not so poor that they
could not afford to boat fare. Most of the really poor and starving
were the ones who were left behind.
They also came here by choice, rather than staying there or going
elsewhere.
And that is true of only some groups of immigrants as well. The Irish
had a potato famine, but it was over well before the civil war. The
Germans who immigrated generally were not "starving". A wave of
German immigration started with the failed revolution of 1848, and
thus had a political element to it as well.
One they got here, there were jobs and money. They could choose to
change jobs and relocate at will (and many of them did). Slaves were
not paid, and could not leave their "employer", and furthermore could
be bought and sold.

Up comes a "recruiter" offering them a
small sum of money, the possibility
of regular servings of FOOD and a nice
blue uniform and shoes, if they will
only sign their "X" and help to put down
the evil Confederates.

Sounds like they had a choice. Eventually there was a draft, and even
then there was a choice, in that large numbers of draftees were able
to buy their way out of service at a high but not unattainable price.
But in all these cases, the service was for a fixed term, and they
were paid for their services. A basic contractual agreement, entered
into by choice, without coercion.

They weren't slaves.

They WERE slaves in every possible meaning of the word.

Not in the least.

That they were only TEMPORARY slaves

They were not slaves at all.

or that they were occasionally given some "pay"

which was the amount agreed upon, and therefore they were not slaves.

can hardly disqualify this attribution.

That alone disqualifies the attribution, but is not the only grounds
for doing so.
By your reasoning, every soldier in the military nowadays is a slave
as well, as is every person who signs a contract to deliver services
for pay.
And that cheapens the concept of slavery to nullity.
The first and most important qualification of slavery is that it is
involuntary, hence the wording of the 13th amendment that ended
slavery in this country.

The campaigns of John Kennedy or
Bobby Kennedy indicate a similar phenomena on
the left.

Neither of those came close to being a personality cult.
Stalin is the classic example on the left.
But in general in this country, leftists are a little too
independent-minded and fractious to form a true personality cult. FDR
is the closest I can think of, and his was primarily driven by the
war, and might not have continued in peace time even if the man had
wanted to stay in power.

I don't find any trace of "false moral righteousness" (indeed, I think
any such falsity on the part of either side of the war, and it would
have ended much more quickly).

The America we have today with its Federal Reserve, Income Taxes and
cleverly designed "redistricting" boundaries,
is NOT the America that would have been without Lincoln.

Without Lincoln, there would have been no America as we could even
conceive of it today. But whatever nation that we would have here
would almost certainly have had all of those things.
(Gerrymandering of districts dates from a Massachusetts election of
1812, by the way. but predecessor phenomena can be found all the way
back in the Roman Republic, where voting was by tribes, and all of the
Roman urbanites were assigned to only 4 of the 35 tribes).
lojbab
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	27 Dec 2007 07:34:18 AM

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Patrick Henry employed the concept of "Gerrymanding" in Virginia in an
effort to keep James Madison from being elected to the First Federal
Congress.

Madison found himself in this uncomfortable position because, with
Henry's sponsorship. Richard Henry Lee had edged him out for a Senate seat.
Governor Henry did everything in his considerable power to orchestrate
Madison's; second defeat as well. He began by drawing Madisons district in
such a manner that the more radical candidate would be advantaged.
Massachusetts's Elbridge Gerry, after whom the term -gerrymandering" was
coined. would one day serve as Madison's vice president. For the moment.
however, the election-averse Virginian stood in danger of being "Henried."
SOURCE: So Help Me God. The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle
Over Church and State, Forrest Church Harcourt, Inc. pp 317-18
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

.

User: "Citizen Jimserac"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	27 Dec 2007 07:55:32 AM

On Dec 26, 10:06=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 25, 3:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:

That enables organized communication, but not organized action.

I would think that organized action would
be a natural consequence of the organized
communication.

No. =A0

Obvious examples: =A0targetted junkmail and election propaganda are both
extremely organized communications, but may or may not result in
action, and seldom result in organized action.

Does Ron Paul getting 10 Million dollars in one day
on the Internet which might result in him
becoming President count?

Communication is usually necessary for organized action, but it is
hardly sufficient. =A0Most importantly, there isn't a lot of actual
action that can take place ON the Internet, so the problem is one of
turning Internet activity into non-Internet activity.

OK, I don't agree but I see your point - now how about
we add Internet enabled cell phones into the mix.
Make them widely and cheaply
available, as is going to happen in the next several years
so that almost everyone has one.
Would that do it?

They weren't slaves.

OH, but they WERE!!!

Only for someone attempting to redefine what a "slave" is for
ideological purposes.

I have to admit that I thought you were going to play a different
ideological redefinition game than you actually did. =A0One classic
Southern argument for slavery called northern industrial workers "wage
slaves", which is just such an ideological redefinition.

Excuse me?!! I'm not playing any idealogical games
and already admitted I'm in unfamiliar territory. I most
certainly do NOT condone slavery, ever - no matter
if it against people forcibly adbucted from their homeland,
nor against people enticed to come here to avoid starvation.

They've just stepped off the boat after
crossing the Atlantic ocean in near
starvation conditions and they were starving
to begin with.

That is an assumption that may have been true for some, but probably
was not true for most. =A0After all, they were not so poor that they
could not afford to boat fare. =A0Most of the really poor and starving
were the ones who were left behind.

They also came here by choice, rather than staying there or going
elsewhere.

And that is true of only some groups of immigrants as well. =A0The Irish
had a potato famine, but it was over well before the civil war. =A0The
Germans who immigrated generally were not "starving". =A0A wave of
German immigration started with the failed revolution of 1848, and
thus had a political element to it as well.

Agreed.

One they got here, there were jobs and money. =A0They could choose to
change jobs and relocate at will (and many of them did). =A0Slaves were
not paid, and could not leave their "employer", and furthermore could
be bought and sold.

This is true.

Sounds like they had a choice. =A0Eventually there was a draft, and even
then there was a choice, in that large numbers of draftees were able
to buy their way out of service at a high but not unattainable price.
But in all these cases, the service was for a fixed term, and they
were paid for their services. =A0A basic contractual agreement, entered
into by choice, without coercion.

Just a simple little draft, NO coercion.... and of course nobody had
the tidy sum needed to "opt" out. What were the consequences
of this little problem? It brought about the worst riots in the
history
of this country, the closest we have ever come to a popular
insurrection.

They soon found themselves standing in vast rows of blue, decimated on=

e by one,

sometimes the better part of entire regiments shredded
by the foolish strategies and inept tactics of incompetent
generals and officers.

They weren't slaves.

They WERE slaves in every possible meaning of the word.

Not in the least.

That they were only TEMPORARY slaves

They were not slaves at all.

or that they were occasionally given some "pay"

which was the amount agreed upon, and therefore they were not slaves.

can hardly disqualify this attribution.

Good point.

The first and most important qualification of slavery is that it is
involuntary, hence the wording of the 13th amendment that ended
slavery in this country.

Understood.

Still another form is the personality cult. =A0I find it interesting
that the only time libertarians seem to be able to organize (and even
then not on a sustained basis) is as a personality cult behind an
individual like Rand, Gatto, or Paul.

The campaigns of John Kennedy or
Bobby Kennedy indicate a similar phenomena on
the left.

Neither of those came close to being a personality cult.

Well, not like Hitler or Stalin to be sure, but the 60's
were a time when a variety of convergent forces came to
a focus and caused enormous social changes, many of them
for the better. It is my belief that Nixon, Reagan and the two
Bush's and the rise of the neo-cons were in part, a reaction
against the changes, sometimes frightening, that occured in that era.

Stalin is the classic example on the left. =A0

But in general in this country, leftists are a little too
independent-minded and fractious to form a true personality cult. =A0FDR
is the closest I can think of, and his was primarily driven by the
war, and might not have continued in peace time even if the man had
wanted to stay in power.

I'm inclined to agree. Look at the rude defeat given Churchill
immediately
after the war ended.

I don't find any trace of "false moral righteousness" (indeed, I think
any such falsity on the part of either side of the war, and it would
have ended much more quickly).

The America we have today with its Federal Reserve, Income Taxes and
cleverly designed "redistricting" boundaries,
is NOT the America that would have been without Lincoln.

Without Lincoln, there would have been no America as we could even
conceive of it today. =A0But whatever nation that we would have here
would almost certainly have had all of those things. =A0

(Gerrymandering of districts dates from a Massachusetts election of
1812, by the way. but predecessor phenomena can be found all the way
back in the Roman Republic, where voting was by tribes, and all of the
Roman urbanites were assigned to only 4 of the 35 tribes).

NOT with todays diversity of populations, cultures and ideas.
I'm not so sure about Lincoln anymore. There was much that was good
but...
Citizen Jimserac
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Different view of "The Pledge"	27 Dec 2007 03:15:20 PM

Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 26, 10:06 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Obvious examples: targetted junkmail and election propaganda are both
extremely organized communications, but may or may not result in
action, and seldom result in organized action.

Does Ron Paul getting 10 Million dollars in one day
on the Internet which might result in him
becoming President count?

No.
There are lots of scams that appear in my email box that if I
responded to them, I might help someone make 10 million dollars. Mass
communication can mean that a lot of people can fall for such a scam.
And even 100 million dollars in one day wouldn't likely result in Ron
Paul becoming President.

Communication is usually necessary for organized action, but it is
hardly sufficient. Most importantly, there isn't a lot of actual
action that can take place ON the Internet, so the problem is one of
turning Internet activity into non-Internet activity.

OK, I don't agree but I see your point - now how about
we add Internet enabled cell phones into the mix.

It is still communications.

Make them widely and cheaply
available, as is going to happen in the next several years
so that almost everyone has one.

I won't. I refuse as much as possible to use the damned things.

Would that do it?

Do what?

I have to admit that I thought you were going to play a different
ideological redefinition game than you actually did. One classic
Southern argument for slavery called northern industrial workers "wage
slaves", which is just such an ideological redefinition.

If they are "enticed" but have to choice to refuse" then they are not
slaves. If they come here and are not coerced into a particular
action upon their arrival, they are not slaves.
I am quite aware that Libertarian theology doesn't recognize people's
free choices motivated by their needs and desires to be "slavery".