MRC's Gainor to NBC: Fire Employees Responsible for Removing 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance
NBC has unquestionably committed an act of religious bigotry designed to offend Christians. Removing ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance in a piece they aired yesterday during the U.S. Open – not once, but twice – was absolutely not accidental.
It was brazenly deliberate.
NBC's pathetic apology did nothing but compound the offense by refusing to admit what they had done. Either NBC identifies and fires the employee or employees responsible for this act or the network is guilty of deliberately giving aid and comfort to religious bigots.
The Media Research Center will be sending letters to leaders of the top Christian denominations in the country, calling on them to hold NBC’s feet to the fire and demand the network fire those responsible. We are urging religious leaders to educate their congregations to NBC's attack on faith and join us in publicly denouncing the network.
Dan Gainor is the Media Research Center Vice President for Business & Culture.
- Dan Gainor's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Fire the producer, editor AND
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:40pm.
whoever else was involved.
I'm betting that it came down from the top.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:00pm.
Soros to Obama to GE to NBC to NBC Sports to the producer.
I agree. Fire them all.
Fire them all - Agree!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:22pm.
This plot to remove our God & USA history will not fly. They have not idea OUR RIGHTS come from God & the Constitution just affirms those God given rights. If they are so against God, I think they should get lost or give up these rights they indirectly deem unimportant. Without God's absolute moral law, we are bound to the shifting guidelines of what ever we like. That has PROVEN not to end well time & again through many societies.
Did you know that male sex shrines with male prostitutes existed thousands of years ago? No, we really don't want to CHANGE to PAGAN values! It is a dead end street & no thanks!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
There you go, Max.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:46pm.
You're going to have libs like Weiner, Barney, Clinton, Spitzer, Prissy Chrissy and most of the MSMBC staff, etc wishing that they had lived back in the "good old days."
I pray the Christians do not go on a violent rampage,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:56pm.
as was recently prophesied by Imamette Sheila Batson Lee.
No need to worry, if they do they're not Christians
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:26pm.
No need to worry, if they do they're not Christians, as true (versus counterfeit) followers of Jesus are forbidden such things. Islam is the opposite however, since true versus counterfeit followers of Mohammed are required to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, no matter the lies of the moderate heretics who don't follow Mohammed or the Koran's requirements of violence or of the media who deliberately regularly lie about Islam and Christianity to promote their immoral degnerate fascist-communist agenda of antitheist bigotry.
Far Be It From Me....
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:59pm.
To agree with NBC or anything they do and stand for, but the original Pledge was not written with "Under God" as part of the text, it was added in the 1950s and as such is not the true text. Simply because it is now part of the current version does not mean the pledge cant be changed, adding those two words show it has been altered in the past and the three times before that.. There was a reason it wasn't included and only Francis Bellamy can say as to why.
Just as an FYI here is the original pledge.
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Yeah but a joint resolution of Congress made it official in '54,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:29pm.
and it hasn't been altered since, so I don't see where it's in NBC's purview to offer their own unofficial version.
I would also point out that the original Pledge as it was written in 1882 was not even adopted by Congress until 1942. And 'under God' was added/adopted a mere 12 years later in 1954. So it's not like the thing has been metamorphosing for a few hundred years.
That being said, some other organizations do use their own embellished versions: e.g., when the Pledge is recited at any Knights of Columbus function and at every meeting, it ends like this:
"...one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn."
Unofficial? Yes, but also not 'public.' NBC is not a religious organization and has no business proselytizing. Or anti-proselytizing as in this case.
Agree
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:35pm.
That NBC does not have the right to alter it without making a reference as to why they have done so I was simply pointing out that it originally didn’t have that phrase. I for one am of the mind that original documents do not need to be altered to make them "Better". It usually carries with it ulterior motives and tends to demean the true intent of the original.
I see your point but...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:39pm.
I think you may be missing what is at the heart of all this and the larger point at hand, and that is NBC's intent behind the omission. The Pledge of Allegiance, as you mentioned, has since the '50's been recited with "Under God" as a part of it...That is the only version that many of us know and were raised on, myself included...It is the standard and accepted form of the pledge that most Americans are familiar with, and it was a calculated and deliberate action on NBC's part to omit it. This was not an "accident" or an "oversight"...It was blatantly intentional, and is a part of NBC's continuing politically correct campaign to marginalize and often denigrate religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
In our house, we pretty much boycott NBC programming (and have for years), with the exception of its sports, which I used to consider fairly safe from the the network's institutional biases. However, as a result of this, we may add NBC's sports coverage to our "do not watch" list as well.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Your logic escapes me, as it
Submitted by Soldat44 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:10pm.
Your logic escapes me, as it does many others.
Maybe we should go back to the Constitution in it's original form, before all those pesky amendments were added.
Peace be with you.
Maybe we should go back to
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:34pm.
Maybe we should go back to the Constitution in it's original form, before all those pesky amendments were added.
Actually, there are a couple of those amendments we could do without.
Starting with the 16th.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Not to mention the 14th which
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:36pm.
Not to mention the 14th which is being perverted today.
Up,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:50pm.
That was the other one I was thinking of.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
*
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:41pm.
*
Vote for the American in November
Stop being obtuse....
Submitted by Lgbpop on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:18pm.
Our Constitution as it exists at the moment is not how it was written and as such is not the true text. Are you suggesting we can also ignore the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? I daresay not, and if you wouldn't dream of doing so then you are being discriminatory in what you choose to abide by and what you choose to ignore.
President Eisenhower asked Congress to make "under God" a part of the Pledge of Allegiance - yes, it's an official pledge, adopted in 1942 as such by Congress - and when it did so, those words became part of the document as well. You can't ignore or omit those words just because you wish to do so. If you choose not to utter them when the Pledge is recited, that's your business but you can't change the Pledge on a whim.
My Point Being.
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:42pm.
They did so under the direct petition of the Knights of Columbus which was a Catholic Organization and in violation some would say to the mixture of Church and State. If a Jewish group had asked this in the 50's I don’t think it would have swayed the President. When one group has direct control over how to edit or change the original documents that the individuals who created them have no say then there will always be the chance of misuse.
To be accurate,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:34pm.
although the KofC (unsuccessfully) advocated for it, it was ultimately a Presbyterian who had Eisenhower's ear who made it happen.
Eisenhower had just become a Presbyterian the year before. And the next president, JFK, was a Knight of Columbus, not that means anything in this case, just a point of interest.
Eisenhower had it inserted
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:41pm.
Eisenhower had it inserted into the pledge for the sole purpose of forcing children in public schools to recite it. It was his way of forcing god into public school. Ironically, people are getting bent out of shape by its omission yesterday rather than being upset with why it was added to the Pledge in the first place.
Also, here's an excerpt from the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Satchmo, The Clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:19am.
And once again Satchmo demonstrates he's clueless and presents uber-lib revisionist history that has no basis in reality.
As to the Tripoli treaty, see here.
It's also interesting that Satchmo ignores the Treaty of Paris (1783) which begins, and I quote, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."
There you go again with your
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:24am.
There you go again with your charge of revisionism but with your failure to identify and explain.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
And the quote from the Treaty of Paris is irrelevant; it does not claim that we were founded as a Christian nation. I would think anyone with a basic understanding of our founding would realize just how important religious freedom was to the Founders.
Satchmo - still clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:35am.
You have no evidence to support your Eisenhower claim and it is revisionism since it was done by a joint session of Congress not Eisenhower.
And the Treat of Paris is quite relevant for it does counter your claim.
Furthermore, you avoided the link I provided which also exposes the fallacies of your argument.
So, my statements stand, remain valid, and you remain clueless and dishonest.
By that logic we should never
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:19pm.
By that logic we should never blame a president for legislation, even when he is the driving force behind it (I'm sure you don't give Obama a pass on his signature legislation). Eisenhower was the impetus; he is the one who pushed the issue for the reaaon I gave.
Of course, the author of the pledge was a socialist whose purpose was trying to sell flags to schools and to indoctrinate children that obedience to the state is a virtue.
And no, the quote you provided and the piece you linked to are not relevant. I'm sure you read what I linked to, right?
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:54pm.
And you still cannot provide any evidence supporting your claims. Typical. My statement stands and remains invalid. My statements also stand unrefuted by you, Satchmo.
" My statement ... remains
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:57pm.
" My statement ... remains invalid."
I agree with you.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:34pm.
I corrected my typo. My statements on your claims stands and do indeed remain valid. Furthermore, you continue to flee in fear from the evidence that refutes you.
"From this day forward, the
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:34pm.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge."
Educate yourself, man.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:53am.
That doesn't support your initial claim of "Eisenhower had it inserted into the pledge for the sole purpose of forcing children in public schools to recite it. It was his way of forcing god into public school.", Satchmo.
Educate yourself, Satchmo. This was done by a joint session of Congress. Eisenhower didn't initiate it nor did he have it "inserted into the pledge for the sole purpose of forcing children in public schools to recite it".
Your ignorance (intentional ignorance most likely) is once again revealed via your pathetically feeble attempts at historical revision.
that's right
Submitted by Hunter S. on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:59am.
It was all to prove to God we weren't communists!
Ignore the Dead Zippers troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:55am.
This is his 27th account. He has been banned for abusive language, threatening post directed at women and their children, and releasing the personal information of other posters without their permission.
Do not feed this troll.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:55am.
Do not feed the trolls.
Of course it does. You are
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:23am.
Of course it does. You are being dishonest to say it doesn't. And Eisenhower most certainly was the driving force behind the legislation, and he initiated it after hearing a sermon. These are facts - easily verified facts. It's not as if this was cloak and dagger stuff, it was very much out in the open. Why are you denying reality? That isn't rational. You can keep repeating "joint session of Congress," but you are ignoring the context.
If Obama was president during implementation
Submitted by Hunter S. on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:27am.
He'd be credited with it. Much like the health care bill congress passed is blamed on Obama. Your right satchmo.
Ignore the Dead Zippers troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:55am.
This is his 27th account. He has been banned for abusive language, threatening post directed at women and their children, and releasing the personal information of other posters without their permission.
Do not feed this troll.
How long before Hunter S.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:01am.
How long before Hunter S. (multi-time troll) will be removed from NB?
My statement stands and
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:01am.
My statement stands and remains valid:
Your response didn't support your initial claim of "Eisenhower had it inserted into the pledge for the sole purpose of forcing children in public schools to recite it. It was his way of forcing god into public school.", Satchmo. You still have not supported your claim. Your subsequent proof actually did NOT address your initial claim which I have quoted verbatim.
Educate yourself, Satchmo. This was done by a joint session of Congress. Eisenhower didn't initiate it nor did he have it "inserted into the pledge for the sole purpose of forcing children in public schools to recite it". These are easily verifiable facts and I took the time to actually research it so this and even provided links as support (something you rarely do and only after repeated challenges) so I know you have no supported your claim as quoted above and what I have presented is factually and historically accurate. I am not ignoring context while you are desperately trying to revise history. And failing.
Your ignorance (intentional ignorance most likely) is once again revealed via your pathetically feeble attempts at historical revision.
Typo Corrected.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:33pm.
CORRECTION: My statement stands and remains valid.
I did and the entire liberal spewage is based on, moslem "truth"
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:34pm.
There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version).
Insestmo moslem apologist.
You Didn't Build That.
No, it isn't. Why are you
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:55pm.
No, it isn't. Why are you threatened by the truth?
Pfffssssst, that would be your
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 4:27pm.
taqiyya....
The foundation of that screed is based on a Arab chunk of paper found in 1930.
You Didn't Build That.
You are incorrect.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:06pm.
You are incorrect.
Satchmo - still ignorant, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:02pm.
Prove it.
Nah...you won't since you can't.
Typical for Satchmo, the dishonest one.
The entire treaty was read
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:41pm.
The entire treaty was read into the Congressional record, including Article XI, which states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Additionally: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm
So what?
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:54pm.
In his filibuster days, Robert Byrd read a number of cooking recipes into the Congressional Record as well. Do you suppose THESE have any particular significance?
Is it possible that you could be this ignorant? The United States had NO NAVY in 1797. The original 6 Frigates, Constitution, President, United States, Constellation, Congress and Chesapeake had not yet been completed. The fledgling United States had no choice but to try to buy peace with these barbarians, who had been actively waging war upon our flag and our merchantmen since the Treaty of Paris in 1782. What people do at the point of a gun has no bearing upon any truth except the gun.
Not a single word in your
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:34am.
Not a single word in your post addresses what I just wrote. I just stated that the Treaty was read into the Congressional record, including Article XI, and you come back with Robert Byrd, recipes, and a bit about the Navy??? And you're calling someone else ignorant?
Ignore the lying Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:46am.
This troll is the only person on the planet that advocates late term abortion right up to the day of birth.
Satchmo -- still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:58am.
Yes you are ignorant, Satch, for you fail to research the history on this and the fact that the Arabic version of which was being referred (and of which you didn't not provide any proof to refute it) is worded differently than the English. You also didn't even bother to read the sources I cited which explain this fact.
Yes, you are ignorant, Satch, and the saddest thing is that your liberal hubris keeps you willfully mired in your ignorance.
Educate yourself, Satch.
Again, it doesn't matter what
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:32am.
Again, it doesn't matter what is in the Arabic version; the president signed the version agreed to by Congress. That version was read in full into the Congressional record. This is an undeniable fact. Regardless, you are an irrational person with an affinity for dishonesty. Have a good day.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:03am.
Actually it does matter, Satch. And the background history of it matters as well. Elsewhere you were crying out about context and here you are ignoring the context. Hypocritical Satchmo.
Educate yourself on this.
I notice you still avoid the links I provided that refute you. Typical.
Yes. Ignorant.
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:33am.
And of inferior mental ability to boot, forcing me to explain it to you.
The treaty of which you speak was a lame attempt to negotiate peace with with the Pasha of Tripoli and his Islamist pirates in 1797. You reference it because it states the United States is not a "Christian Nation". It says this because our Christian heritage [the Ambassador called us 'infidels'] was one of the reasons for war upon the United States and its merchantmen given by the Tripolitani Ambassador to England in negotiation with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1785. Google this if you like.
I was pointing out to you that this treaty you hold up as proof of the non-Christian origins of the current Republic is a statement exacted from our founders/leaders under threats of force by representatives of the then Muslim Caliphate. Such extorted statements mean nothing. Our Founders would never have done any such thing had they been in possession of a Navy that could defeat these thugs. In fact, one of the first things they did after this ignominious treaty was authorize the construction of 6 frigates for the express purpose of guarding our merchantmen, citizens and property against these Muslim outlaws and repudiating this treaty.
Do you feel foolish now? You should.
The purpose of the treaty is
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:12am.
The purpose of the treaty is immaterial, and your trying to claim that the treaty or the statemenr was extorted is very, very weak. Your repeated mention of frigates is also immaterial. All you have offered are red herrings.
>FLUSH!<
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:16am.
.
Ditto Flush
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:31pm.
As well stated above; any intellectually honest person, need not be a lawyer, could see they were trying to manipulate the Muslims into not attacking our interests. I would say even honest rocks could understand that. Just like people saying this is not a Christian Nation, or was not founded as Christian. Even Obama admits that. He is just trying to change it.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Satchmo just grabs what he
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:39pm.
Satchmo just grabs what he can find from cherry-picked websites and refuses to actually research. That's some of why he's willfully ignorant as well as willfully dishonest.
You can't have it both ways.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:55pm.
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand it's claimed this Article doesn't appear in the Arabic version. On the other hand it's claimed that the Article was used to manipulate the Muslims (this now follows the previous claim that we were the ones being manipulated). So if it were used to manipulate the Muskims, then it most certainly be in the Arabic treaty, wouldn't it? After all, that would be the audience, they would be the ones who could hold up the Article as some sort of victory. But now we're back to the claim that it doesn't appear in the Arabic version.
Bottom line, regardless of reason, the Article, along with the rest of the treaty, was read into the Congressional record, there was no debate or objection on the floors of Congress, and the President signed it. There was no public backlash about it, either, even though the treaty was published in major newspapers.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 1:12pm.
Give it up, Satch, you've been defeated on this. One would think you'd be used to being defeated via documented facts by now.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:25pm.
You're projecting again since you're now throwing out red herrings of your own. The purpose of the treaty is very relevant. You dance around the evidence that refutes you. Sad, sad, Satchmo.
Educate yourself, Satchmo.
When did Eisenhower
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:29pm.
call you and tell you that he was inserting "Under God" in the pledge, just to sell flags and indoctrinate children. Please provide the time and date of the call, so we can judge whether you're lying, yet again, or are just throwing feces against the wall to see what sticks. And Salon doesn't count as a reputable source.
Or, did this idea come to you in a vision, like the vision of the professor who boinks his daughter, but it's ok, cuz it might have been consensual.
The pledge was created in
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:30am.
The pledge was created in 1892, not 1954. Eisenhower was only two years old. Furthermore, I said the creator of the pledge, not Eisenhower.
Ignore the Lying Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:46am.
This troll is the only person on the planet that advocates late term abortion right up to the day of birth.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:48am.
Satchmo, read the following:
---
While reading the writings of the Founding Fathers, one gets the idea that these brilliant men believed in Christianity and held it as very dear to not only themselves but also for the development of the nation they founded. Skeptics counter this claim by using a document called the Treaty of Tripoli. Their argument goes that this document states America is not a Christian nation and since no one objected to those words being written in, they therefore conclude America is in fact not a Christian nation and it would be foolish to assume that it is.
Is there any validity to this argument?
When looking at all the facts, the informed individual would have to conclude no.
Why?
1. When hard pressed to come up with another document to use as evidence, the Treaty is pretty much the only one that comes to mind.
One would think there would be at least some other documents that flat out say America is not Christian, yet there arent any others. There's nothing even close.
2. The Treaty is not a founding document.
The list of founding documents includes the Mayflower Compact, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and of course the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact, I dont think any historian would include the Treaty as a founding document. Since it does not count as one, it is no more relevant to whether America is Christian than the document issuing the surrender at Appomattox.
3. The Treaty is no longer in effect.
Skeptics would have you believe that this document holds some bearing even to this day when in fact the treaty was broken in 1801 over a refusal to pay a tribute to one of the parties. Does it make any sense to use a document that has not been in effect for more than two centuries? I dont think so.
4. The words in question seem to have been inserted in order to prevent a holy war.
Some backround concerning the treaty is needed here. When America was a new nation, it branched off in all known areas in order to expand their trade. The problem came in when ships traveling to Tripoli were being hijacked by Barbary pirates and the crew members were either tortured or sold into slavery. Knowing this cut into both nation's trade, the US and Tripoli entered into contracts that helped each nation ensure safe passage for the cargo and the crew transporting them. Now, the Founders knew that both the pirates and the Tripoli government were Muslims, and they also knew that these two groups remembered the Crusades. Therefore, the words were used to play down or perhaps mislead Tripoli concering what Americans believed.
5. The quote often used as evidence is only part of the story.
Here's the actual wording from the Treaty used for the argument:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
As we can clearly see, the whole message is actually that both parties agree to harbor no ill will against each other and that religious dialogue is not to be spoken in relation to trade. The skeptic argument doesn't come even close to the whole story and even if it did, the treaty is not in force anyway.
6. If skeptics really want to argue the point, then the article clearly says the government of the US is not Christian, not the people.
This one is obvious from the wording used in the treaty.
7. This treaty doesn't support the skeptic's warped version of church state separation anyway.
Thinking that the church should have nothing to do with the state but turning around and saying the government can boss churches around violates a church's First Amendment right to free speech and to govern themselves.
(Source)
---
Also see here.
God does not equal
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:22pm.
God does not equal Christianity. The majority of the Founders were Deists. There is a difference. They did not create a Christian nation. To claim otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the founding principles.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:55pm.
You flee in fear from the evidence that refutes you and all you can do is avoid the points I raised.
Flee in fear of straw men?
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:02pm.
Flee in fear of straw men and logical fallacies? That's all you've got. No one is arguing that a Treaty is a founding document. Using their "logic" none of the documents say we aren't an Islamic nation, either. Does that mean we're an Islamic nation? That is some weak, weak stuff you're trying to pass off. Not surprising.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:42pm.
You still haven't provided any proof of your claims as I have already shown. And I haven't presented any straw man nor fallacies. So your accusation here is false (which is typical for you) and as such, is by definition a straw man in of itself.
The fact that you continue to flee in fear from the evidence that refutes you is quite telling. But of course, it's readily apparent that you habitually make claims you cannot support with evidence and when it's pointed out you end up resorting to ad hominem, straw man, red herrings, plenty of equivocations, prevarications, obfuscations, and bloviations. All in your usual feeble attempt to avoid the issues raised, the evidence that refutes you and the fact that you've put your foot deeply into your mouth once again by making claims you can't back up.
For the benefit of the reader, the information Satchmo avoids and can't address may be found here, here, and here.
→ Satchmo
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:08pm.
Satchmo just got back from Columbia University, settling in to his new office.
Liberal Columbia Professor Keeps Job Despite Pleading Guilty to Incest Charge
You suffer from a horrible
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:10pm.
You suffer from a horrible case of projection.
→ Satch
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:16pm.
Stop looking at it! You suffer from a bad case of drool.
As you project, Satch.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:59am.
As you project, Satch.
Deist; Which ones?
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:54pm.
Like deist Ben Franklin? God started the world & then is no longer involved.
-----------------
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:22pm.
"God does not equal Christianity. The majority of the Founders were Deists. There is a difference. They did not create a Christian nation. To claim otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the founding principles."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
religions of the Founding Fathers
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:10pm.
Don't know if everyone will accept the source but here is the list.
Please remember that then as it is today we can only truly go by their religious declaration - often their actions may not have supported their beliefs.
Thanks...
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:33pm.
I see two I think that says " Episcopalian (Deist)" (Franklin & Jefferson). Episcopalian is not Deist so I think this is a stretch. They are Episcopalian therefore. Certainly Christian as shown by the statement of Episcopalian.
I have only looked up Franklin this statement certainly shows he is not a Deist in the current use of the word or he would not say this stuff (requesting prayer & God's direction):
-------
Ben Franklin Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer delivered Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm snip in-part
"how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
MaxBrave,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:43pm.
The fine print states that duel representation occurs when any of the founding fathers switched faiths. Franklin started Episcopalian and later changed (possibly due to his time in France - entirely my speculation). Regardless the Founding Fathers had their base in Christianity and it is silly to argue this as a fact. It is also quite obvious, IMHO, that they wanted what could be loosely referred to as a 'Christian Nation'. However, they went to great lengths to make sure that government could not interfere in the individual right of religion.
Unfortunately, too many people on the agnostic/atheist side of the table want to practice freedom from religion and not freedom of religion.
But they didn't, and they
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 4:08pm.
But they didn't, and they didn't seek a nation that could be "loosely referred to" as a Christian nation. Certainly some were Christian, but they were not seeking to create a Christian nation; they sought to create a nation for all faiths to worship freely.
IMO patently false Satchmo
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:07pm.
They did not want to establish an official Christian denomination as "THE" state Church. Like in England & the rest of Europe. They clearly wanted a Christian nation, and even stated the framework would not work for a nation of people without this moral background. This is well established. Just look at what is on & in the buildings within the Nation's capital. Christian plain & simple.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I'm sorry, MB, but you are
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:31pm.
I'm sorry, MB, but you are wrong. You will have to be specific about the buildings.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:03am.
Educate yourself, Satch. Read "The Rewriting of America's History" by Catherine Millard which well documents what Maximus stated.
Riiight. I can't imagine
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:18am.
Riiight. I can't imagine she'd have any preconceived biases.
Satchmo - still clueless, still dishonest
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:27pm.
Cease with the unfounded presuppositions. Educate yourself, Satch. Read "The Rewriting of America's History" by Catherine Millard which well documents what Maximus stated.
Apparently you fail to understand what documentation is. Figures.
Query
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:14pm.
Name a historian who DOES NOT HAVE "preconceived biases", sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
She's not a historian. She's
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:05pm.
She's not a historian. She's a Doctor of Ministry.
Again, hardly someone coming into the subject without a preconceived view and preconceived conclusion.
Interesting...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 7:04pm.
So ONLY historians can write on history all of a sudden?
And no one - NOBODY - writes history without preconceived notions and conclusions.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Library of Congress
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:52pm.
has a different take.
Truely honestly Satch, you have no clue.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:12am.
Honest Satch, you need to study what life was like, what the wrote, & what they believed from 1600's through 1800's to get at what our founders meant and how they felt. Sure there are exceptions but they are very few as a percentage. Some of my relatives came in 1630. Religion played a major role in everyday life (including learning at schools & colleges) till sometime in the 1900's when people became SELF-CENTERED and became their own god.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I don't know what your
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:38am.
I don't know what your relatives have to do with anything. I asked you about the buildings you referred to. I never said religion didn't play a role in everyday life; I said the Founders did not set out to create a Christian nation, loosely or otherwise.
Satchmo = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:05am.
Do not feed the trolls.
Looks like you've been
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:14am.
Looks like you've been studying at the foot of Alinksky.
Satchmo = TROLL (And now he's projecting.)
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 12:29pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Incestmo thinks he is a historian now
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:24pm.
Really? The majority of the Founders were Deists?
Prove it.
I want names, I want sources.
Sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Will you accept this?
Submitted by Hunter S. on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:59pm.
Name of Signer-- State--Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll-- Maryland-- Catholic
Samuel Huntington--Connecticut-- Congregationalist
Roger Sherman-- Connecticut-- Congregationalist
William Williams-- Connecticut-- Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott-- Connecticut-- Congregationalist
Lyman Hall-- Georgia-- Congregationalist
Samuel Adams-- Massachusetts-- Congregationalist
John Hancock-- Massachusetts-- Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett-- New Hampshire-- Congregationalist
William Whipple-- New Hampshire-- Congregationalist
William Ellery-- Rhode Island-- Congregationalist
John Adams-- Massachusetts-- Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine-- Massachusetts-- Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton-- Georgia-- Episcopalian
John Penn-- North Carolina-- Episcopalian
George Ross-- Pennsylvania-- Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr.-- South Carolina-- Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr.-- South Carolina-- Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton-- South Carolina-- Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge-- South Carolina-- Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
George Read-- Delaware-- Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney-- Delaware-- Episcopalian
Samuel Chase-- Maryland-- Episcopalian
William Paca --Maryland-- Episcopalian
Thomas Stone-- Maryland-- Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry-- Massachusetts-- Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson-- New Jersey-- Episcopalian
Francis Lewis-- New York-- Episcopalian
Lewis Morris-- New York-- Episcopalian
William Hooper-- North Carolina-- Episcopalian
Robert Morris-- Pennsylvania-- Episcopalian
John Morton-- Pennsylvania-- Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins-- Rhode Island-- Episcopalian
Carter Braxton-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr.-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
George Wythe-- Virginia-- Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson-- Virginia-- Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin-- Pennsylvania-- Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett-- Georgia-- Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson-- Pennsylvania-- Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes-- North Carolina-- Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer-- Pennsylvania-- Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean-- Delaware-- Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton-- New Hampshire-- Presbyterian
Abraham Clark-- New Jersey-- Presbyterian
John Hart-- New Jersey-- Presbyterian
Richard Stockton-- New Jersey-- Presbyterian
John Witherspoon-- New Jersey-- Presbyterian
William Floyd-- New York-- Presbyterian
Philip Livingston-- New York-- Presbyterian
James Smith-- Pennsylvania-- Presbyterian
George Taylor-- Pennsylvania-- Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush-- Pennsylvania-- Presbyterian
The signers weren't the only
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:12pm.
The signers weren't the only Founding Fathers. Thomas Paine and George Washington immediately come to mind as two FFs who were not signers.
I have no opinion
Submitted by Hunter S. on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:18pm.
I was just offering my services. Any link you posted wouldn't have been believed by the residents. I consider myself a completely neutral 3rd party in this matter. Now slap 'em back!
For all I know you wrote this yourself
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 7:05pm.
Source?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:05pm.
... amendments have changed The Constitution since it's origination.
Following your logic, we can ignore any of the amendments we don't agree with?
FYI, KMA.
Ignorance
Submitted by Cranky_Curmudgeon on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:18pm.
Why not? Your "president" in D.C. and the dems/libtards already do so whenever they wish. Evidence the current refusal to abide by the war powers act.
Beside the point...
Submitted by Truestar on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:15pm.
Thanks for the little history tutorial on the Pledge, but it means nothing in the context of this incident.
Gee, that's not overreacting
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:34pm.
Gee, that's not overreacting at all. A very rational, thought-out, well-proportioned response.
Yes. Kinda like that time you said 2 cop killers were innocent.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:07pm.
Oh wait, we are still waiting for a rational, thought-out, well proportioned response with the evidence you promised you would show us as to why you thought cop killers out to be set free.
I'm glad to see somebody picking up the ball
Submitted by DaMav on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:33pm.
and running with it -- Kudos to MRC.
This anti-Christian bigotry has got to be stopped. Now the question is whether the ostensible leaders of the Christian faith will stand to NBC.
Fail
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:39pm.
Wonder if Comcast and NBC are aware of their unpatriotic bias reporting and their loosing what viewers they have left. This "mistake" was done thinking it would appeal to libs and atheists and it back-fired. Many American's who watched the golf show are discusted that a media outlet would be so immature and hateful. It's time to stop all support and money paid to Comcast for their radical and extreme broadcasting and services. The whole outfit is a disgrace and in time, will fail.
How on earth can you call
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:22pm.
How on earth can you call this "unpatriotic" or "radical"? The omission of "under God" doesn't change the country or the flag to which allegiances are pledged.
Also: Who the heck watches golf?
Opinion
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:36pm.
It is my opinion. As far as I am concerned, nbc is a radical and many times, unpatriotic in their liberal agenda. Watch Golf anytime possible as do many others.......gotta a problem with that??
Not at all, the golf part was
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:37pm.
Not at all, the golf part was just a dig.
I watched to see if Rory
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:44pm.
I watched to see if Rory could hang on.
And they do this whole sappy, overwrought "tribute" to America before the coverage started, dripping with patriotism, and it's editing out "under God" that sends people over the edge?
Ya know,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:00pm.
if coverage of a "sappy, overwrought "tribute" to America" offends you so much, there are things you can do to escape that which offends you so much.
Good
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:43pm.
Good
As an agnostic with no
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:11pm.
As an agnostic with no official religious affiliation, I feel offended by the inclusion of "Under God."
Sounds silly, doesn't it? As does this accusation of religious bigotry. As someone else already pointed out, the pledge has been demonstrably malleable since its inception. "Under God" was added at the height of the Red Scare, presumably as a counter-measure to the godlessness of communism. This demand that the responsible employees be fired - and I do so love MRC's delusion that it's in a position to "demand" anything - acts as though this offense was on par with burning a flag or spitting on the Constitution. It was still a pledge to the United States; omitting "Under God" makes it more inclusive, not less. This is just like the overblown, basically non-existent War on Christmas. You seem to think that all outlets, even if they're private companies, owe it to you to adhere to your preferred enchantments; whether they be hearing "Merry Christmas" rather than that cornerstone of anti-Christian bigotry "Happy Holidays," or the intertwining of patriotism with Christianity in spite of the fact that our nation has no official religion.
If you have no religion then
Submitted by Soldat44 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:47pm.
If you have no religion then why does it offend you?
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of 'offend':
a : to transgress the moral or divine law : sin b : to violate a law or rule : do wrong
2a : to cause difficulty, discomfort, or injury b : to cause dislike, anger, or vexation
transitive verb
1a : violate, transgress b : to cause pain to : hurt
2obsolete : to cause to sin or fall
3: to cause to feel vexation or resentment usually by violation of what is proper or fitting
Are you distressed or vexed by the word 'God'? Are you hurting when you hear the word 'God'?
Please explain?
It does not offend me; that
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:40pm.
It does not offend me; that was the point.
The Godless seem only offended
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:31pm.
By God
The war on Christian values is real. "The Pink Swastika"
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:48pm.
I guess you already knew this part of history, documented fact, in your education. Hitler had to get gays to do his most brutal work because they had no absolute moral laws inhibiting their behavior.
---------- http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080515
"The Pink Swastika,"
The Interfaith Alliance, a far-left religious advocacy group in Idaho, has accused Scott Lively, a scheduled speaker at this weekend's "Shake the Nation" conference in Boise, of "bearing false witness" and of being "mean-spirited and hurtful."
Lively's crime? In his book, "The Pink Swastika," Lively exposes a secret homosexual activists don't want you to know about Nazi Germany: that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms.
Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."
In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, (he was) a homosexual."
Hitler eventually had Roehm shot, not because he was a homosexual but because his influence over the Brown Shirts made him a political threat to Hitler's control. The Roehm Purge, or "Night of the Long Knives," was largely implemented by homosexuals.
Hitler's Brown Shirts, the dreaded SA, better known as "Storm Troopers," were the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach, and Storm Troopers were almost exclusively homosexual. They also, sadly, comprised most of the leadership of the Hitler Youth, resulting in frequent instances of sexual molestation.
The Brown Shirts were Hitler's enforcers. According to Nazi historian Louis Snyder, Roehm recruited homosexuals into the SA because Roehm felt Germany needed "a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in (Roehm's) eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals."
Of the Brown Shirts, historian Thomas Fuchs says, "The principle function of this army-like organization was beating up on anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals."
Historian H.R. Knickerbocker writes, "Roehm, as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troops, had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts. His chiefs were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual, he had no chance of advancement."
Most of Hitler's closest aides were homosexuals or sexual deviants. This circle included not only Roehm but the Hitler Youth leader, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Economics, Hermann Goering (who may not have been homosexual but who liked to dress in drag, paint his nails and put rouge on his cheeks), his personal attorney and his bodyguards. Hitler himself likely functioned as a male prostitute in the days of his youth in Vienna.
Heinrich Himmler, second in power only to Hitler, was publicly opposed to homosexuality but may have been a closet homosexual himself, and served Roehm faithfully and loyally until Roehm fell out of Hitler's favor. Himmler was deeply immersed in the occult, as was Hitler, which led them ultimately to replace every Christian holiday on the German calendar with a pagan counterpart.
In fact, Jews and clergy alike were targets of Nazi wrath. One of the favorite tunes of the Brown Shirts contained this line, "Storm Trooper Comrades, hang the Jews and put the priests against the wall."
In sum, as Lively points out, the masculine homosexual movement in Germany created the Brown Shirts, and the Brown Shirts in turn created the Nazi Party.
There of course is no question that the Nazis rounded up effeminate homosexuals and a great many of them died in slave labor camps as a result of mistreatment and disease. Historians estimate that less than one percent of Europe's homosexual community died at the hands of the Nazis. While even one such death is too many, this pales in comparison to the 85% of Europe's Jews who, unlike homosexuals, were sent to gas chambers.
Many of the guards and administrators responsible for concentration camp horrors were themselves homosexuals. Famous Nazi hunter Elie Weisel was sent to Auschwitz, where he discovered that the head of his part of the camp "loved children," and observed that "there was a considerable traffic in young children among homosexuals there."
A Nazi administrator at Treblinka, according to one historian, "had a harem of little Jewish boys" and "sought in Treblinka only the satisfaction of his homosexual instincts."
In some camps, SS guards would actually sponsor lotteries to see which of the "young attractive homosexuals" would go to whom, while at the same time, according to one historian, they "lashed out with special fury against those who showed effeminate traits." A Pink Triangle survivor said, "The ones who were soft were the ones who suffered terribly."
The "Butch" homosexual guards and capos were capable of unrestrained cruelty, sadism and savagery. A guard at Auschwitz, for instance, strangled, crushed and gnawed to death as many as 100 boys and young men a day while raping them at his leisure.
Historian Frank Rector writes of a film made by the SS "that was secretly made for the enjoyment of a select coterie of Nazis showing a wild drunken orgy of beautiful boys and handsome young men being whipped, raped and murdered by the SS."
Even today in America, it is chic in some homosexual circles for individuals to wear replicas of Nazi Germany uniforms, complete with iron crosses, storm trooper outfits, military boots and even swastikas.
Some parts of the American Nazi movement are explicitly homosexual. The National Socialist League, in fact, at last word restricts its membership to homosexual Nazis.
What's the point here? Simply that there is another side to the constant refrain from homosexual activists who frequently mention the Nazi persecution of homosexuals and in so doing imply that Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexuality are in effect crypto-Nazis.
The truth is that Christians and certain portions of the homosexual community alike had much to fear from the Nazis.
As has been famously said, those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality. These are mistakes no sane culture should ever make again.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Well that's some pretty sweet
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:49pm.
Well that's some pretty sweet cut n pastin'.
And this has what to do with anything?
So homosexuality pervades many institutions, even the ones you would least expect? Well no kidding, I am, for instance, quite familiar with the Catholic church's disastrous handling of this fact. And there were gays in the Nazi party? Well get out of town. Next you'll tell me that Caligula and other corrupt and decadent Roman rulers engaged in same-sex amorousness.
But wait...it's not just that there were gays in the Nazi party, it's that the Nazi party RELIED on gays because only they were immoral enough to perpetrate such atrocities. Well, now you're wandering into some seriously problematic territory, and I'm afraid your preferred historians, Abrams and Lively, have been discredited time and again.
Here's a good starting point.
http://www.pink-triangle.org/ptps/revresp.html
Errosion of values takes time. Omit them & Stop teaching them.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:06pm.
From http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/29/nazi-homosexuals-an-incovenient...
In a recent thread at Volokh, I encountered perhaps the most currently widespread lie about Hitler: that he hated homosexuals and that he wanted to exterminate homosexuals like he wanted to do so with the Jewish people.
Keating Willcox: " Hitler thought of Russians the same as Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies."
Hitler most certainly DID NOT. (Himmler did, however).
By all accounts, Hitler had quite a perverse sexuality mind himself, and he was very, very cozy with people with a homosexual problem. So much so, that perhaps what we can call his best friend for years, the immensely powerful SA chief Enrst Rohm, was a virulent homosexual zealot.
Hitler had known Rohm was a homosexual for a long time, along with several other Nazi men and other Hitler supporters. It was through Hitler’s personal invitation that Rohm got the top spot at the SA. Remember those savage, brutal Nazis (several of whom were homosexuals) with boots and brown shirts? The SA was a political army that protected the party leadership, battled opponents such as the Communist Red Front and terrorized Jews.
The reason for the elimination of Rohm in 1934 has nothing to do with Hitler being opposed to homosexuality. It has to do with Rohm’s growing power which increasingly loomed as a serious threat to take over even Hitler’s power, putting Rohm in a direct collision course with other top Nazis, such as Goring, Gobbels, and Himmler.
As another example of the monstrosity of homosexual Nazis in Germany, the first Nazi concentration camp was built under the command of Rohm. Yet such information is usually lied about or omitted in current discourses about homosexuals in Germany, which always present only one narrow narrative of the ones sent to the camps.
There were a significant number of homosexuals in all layers of the Nazis is undisputed history. They were brutal and grotesque, and many were very comfortable with their homosexuality
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
You are the agnostic that screams...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:59pm.
OH GOD. OH GOD! GOOOHHHHDD!!!!! When having great sex with a woman instead of your hand. The one or two times in your life it has happened so far.
May God Bless you with fine women, or men if that is your preference, in order to have you cry out His Name!!!!
God, please help me to find You and Your forgiveness. Amen.
You just prayed to God!
AND you are still alive.
Thank you Jesus. Amen
DID IT AGAIN!
For an agnostic, you sure do pray a lot!
What?
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:03pm.
What?
Yeah what was that.
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:21pm.
Yeah what was that.
~?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:54pm.
Who let Jimmy Swaggart in here?
As an elitest with no
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:11pm.
As an elitest with no
As an elitest with no
As an elitest with no
As an elitest with no concern about this website or the people here, I, Binky Braveheart will do my best to come here and whine that everything you do and say is overblown and not worth the time it would take me to post here. I.... Oh wait.... Fudge.
It's "elitist," n'est-ce pas?
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:30pm.
It's "elitist," n'est-ce pas? ;)
Think I care?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 6:06pm.
Think I care?
Think I care?
Think I care?
It was a troll talking.
Thanks Vet, for flushing out the...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 6:18pm.
Euro weenie-surrender monkey! He's "offended" by under God. So much for justice for all, like those who believe. They have no justice when trumped by "offense". This clown will decide who gets what justice based on his "feelings" and how the subject may "offend" him. We should take the GOVERNMENT APPROVED language out of the Pledge and shut up so frenchie "feels good" about himself. I find eunuchs like him offensive, and the same government has given him permission to serve in the military, but Binky here, he's too "offended" by the military too, until he needs them! I don't go to mediamatters to whine about how offensive binky is.... I pray for them.
Hey Binky, here is another one for you... "God please save my wretched soul and forgive my transgressions against You. In Your Son's Name, Jesus, I pray. Love, JasonC". Amen"
You are getting so good at the whole prayer thing! Keep practicing!
I am an ELITIST.
I am an ELITIST.
I am an ELITIST.
God is ELITE! Therefore God is Great! Amen!
Oh Frack, JasonC keeps on praying now.... Yes, Binky, you are getting the hang of it. I doubt the whole agnostic thing now, and I think that you were just crying out for attention, and for someone to help you pray for yourself without guilt. Without pain. Without offense. Without fear.
And so I waffle over the
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:22pm.
And so I waffle over the paradox that is Poe's Law.
By the way, reread the original post. I'm not offended by "under God." That was to make a point. A point that relied on the assumption that anyone who read it would think it was ridiculous. Apparently, it only did it's job halfway.
Still giving orders. "Reread my post"
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:43pm.
Still giving orders. "Reread my post"
Still giving orders. "Reread my post"
Still giving orders. "Reread my post"
Still giving orders. "Reread my post"
Only a troll assumes everyone is going to read his entire post. No one gets paid to read your whine after whine after whine. Next time put the sarcasm at the bottom. And stop being such a whiny pink pantie wearing goob that acts as though he hates everyone and everything about this site. Then, Binky, then the boys and girls might understand your sarcasm.
Semper Fi, Vet...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:55pm.
I read the post. I understood the twisted thinking. Now I revel in the backtracking. We can look forward to the following excuses comrade:
I was hacked... Someone played a joke on me... I was only trying to spark conversation.... You misunderstood my intent... You put the words in context... My mom beat me after my dad left her drunken arse... I never had a daddy... I play with barbie dolls... Words hurt me so very deeply... Im offended by God, bu I cannot get enough abortions... As a matter of fact, ALL of my friends ARE white... I can only tolerate views that agree with mine... Diversity means wearing women's underwear every other day... My mommy married another woman... I have a SUPER WIDE stance... I am, indeed, a homosexual American... Lewinsky? Nope, never heard of the pizza/cigar delivery service... Global warming is real... Global cooling is a threat...Climate change happens every day (DUH!)...
I am starting to like you big guy.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:09pm.
Quickest time of getting under Binky Braveheart's skin I ever saw. Most excellent work Sir.
→ That there's funny
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:25pm.
That's about the funniest post I've read in a year.
Now you sound like...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:40pm.
John Leibowitz. "I'm only a comedian!"
You and your post are a joke. You wrote: "As an agnostic with no official religious affiliation, I feel offended by the inclusion of "Under God."Sounds silly, doesn't it? As does this accusation of religious bigotry." ALL YOUR ORIGINAL POST COMRADE...
1: "As an agnostic with no official religious affiliation, I feel offended by the inclusion of "Under God."
A true statement made by you in writing and posting.
2: "Sounds silly, doesn't it?"
A deflection should you be challenged seriously by the stupid, not silly, statement that YOU made. As you are now being challenged since you made your hateful post. Huffpo misses you. Mediamatters needs your input. Go away.
3: "As does this accusation of religious bigotry."
What accusation of religious bigotry? Like racism, I know bigotry when someone posts it. This sentence confirms your first, original point in the first sentence about being offended by words. No accusation here, this is religious bigotry that you would not DARE POST on a muslim website. They would kill you.
Take your communist crap somewhere else you hater. I am bitter about you scumbags tearing this country down, and I cling to my guns and my God. Something you and the current punk in chief will never understand, but you will be defeated. At the ballot box.
God save you from yourself. "Save me Dear Jesus. Amen." Repeat that daily pal...
I intended my post to mean
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:06am.
I intended my post to mean exactly what I wrote. Clearly, you have something in mind that you want it to mean, and that's fine. Your manner of arguing cued me to the fact that you are not to be taken seriously several posts ago. I truly could not care less how you took my meaning.
Communist Crap? Where does this come from? Did I cite Marx and Engels? Did I advocate governmental agrarian appropriation and call you comrade? It is a sign of a very weak debate opponent when that person not only tries to tar you with namecalling, but the name used is completely irrelevant. I mean, seriously, trying to smear someone as a communist? Is it 1986?
And since you asked, the original article makes accusations of religious bigotry in no uncertain terms. The author states that if NBC doesn't fire the responsible persons then they "are guilty of deliberately giving aid and comfort to religious bigots."
Do you have any REAL rhetorical challenges to make? Any interest in actually challenging my arguable and by no-means-rock-solid assertion that the pledge is less sacred than the Constitution or the flag? That's where an actual discussion might develop.
"Tearing this country down"? With what? My indifference to a private corporation omitting religion from an otherwise patriotic pledge. Oh yes, that will truly be the end of the republic, won't it. Be religious and conservative all you want. I don't care what you do. But to say that removing religion from patriotism is tearing down the country is absurd. Christianity has no official or inextricable ties to this country or its charter. Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ. Madison was an atheist. This idea that the founding fathers were so moved by religion - as opposed to enlightenment-era thinking and theorists like Locke and Rousseau - is a fantasy. I'm thrilled that religious freedom exists, and that you can do your thing and I can do mine. But I'm even more thrilled that those behaviors aren't enshrined in the law. You (predictably) state that I'd be in hot water if I posted anti-Allah ideas on a muslim site. Well, probably. But most Christian conservatives that I've encountered enjoy nothing more than flapping their gums about how much better they are than such fundamentalists. So put your money where your mouth is and stop equating non-Christianity to communism, anti-Americanism, and whatever other stunningly unoriginal slanders you can dream up.
Finally, I gently encourage you to check out my profile and compare the respective lengths of time that you and I have posted here. I have co-existed and debated more or less amicably with lots and lots of conservatives here for quite awhile. If I was the liberal brute you like to think, I would have been banned by the administrators or simply ridden out of town on a rail long ago.
Wow. mamabear wrote another 4 page screed.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:11am.
Hey mamabear/classicliberal2/Binky Braveheart, we are not paid to read your 6 page screeds. You got a point. Make it. Otherwise, feel free to make long rambling posts the boys and girls will skip right over.
What, are you sockpuppeting
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:22am.
What, are you sockpuppeting USMC now? Why don't you let him respond to a post directed at him?
Oh I'm sorry, did I type too many words? This from the guy whose new schtick is posting the same sentence 4 times.
Seriously, say something interesting or get lost. I'll post exactly as much as I feel like, until the reactionary nonsense gets tiring enough for me to take a few more months off. Frankly, all your Benjy-Compson-on-acid posts just make me want to stick around to make you look more foolish.
Huzzah.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:36am.
Huzzah.
Is that what Asata said when she killed that police officer?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:06pm.
You know, Asata, one of the 2 cop killers you proclaim is innocent here without providing the slightest bit of evidence.
Now Pack Sand cop killer lover.
Whoops.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
Binky Braveheart: Why don't you let him respond to a post directed at him?
It is a public website Binky. You are free to post antithetical horsepoo. I am free to respond to your antithetical horsepoo. Now get your hand out of your diaper, and stop whining. Mumzietroll will be home soon with the diaper rash ointment.
Binky Braveheart: ...guy whose new schtick is posting the same sentence 4 times.
As opposed to the guy that posts the first part of his first sentence twice by failing to fill in the subject line and show a little respect to other posters? I called mumzietroll, she will bring a hankie for your tears.
Binky Braveheart: I'll post exactly as much as I feel like...
Just you Binky? Or are you insinuating the rest of us are not allowed to post exactly as much as we feel like in response to your overwrought oratorical spew from on high.
Binky Braveheart: ...to take a few more months off...
That a threat Binky? Whatever, oh whatever will we do to carry on?
Binky Braveheart: ...make me want to stick around to make you look more foolish.
Yeah, Binky, might want to actually accomplish that before you go bragging. Just a thought.
Oh and Binky, here is some free advice from The Vet. Next time, play your hand close to the vest. Coming in with one whine after another in response to the trolljegeren only lets the trolljegeren know what works. Maybe if you did not leave for months at a time, you might have learned that lesson already.
What do you mean by
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:56pm.
What do you mean by "antithetical" in this context?
True about the public website. Funny though, since you generally carry on as though you are owner and administrator. But what's with admonishing the length of my posts? I have no investment in your reading them anyhow. I'm quite certain that if I admonished you for the phrasing or verbosity of your challenges to Balboa, you'd tell me to mind my own.
No, that is not a threat. Quite the opposite. A "threat" would be if I said "If you continue to do X, I'll do Y." But what I've said is that I'll do Y until I tire of it, regardless of your shenanigans.
And you're right, I don't make you look foolish. I just sit back and observe and and provide occasional fodder for you to make yourself look foolish.
We having a conversation Binky?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:04pm.
No. Actaully, I don't believe we are. You keep dreaming of that day you will make the trolljegeren foolish, mmmmkay? The antithetical troll says he is making the trolljegeren look foolish. Evidence of that troll? Oh, prolly in the same place your buddy keeps his cop killer innocence evidence.
All in favor, click AYE*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:30pm.
JasonC to The Vet....True about a public website. Funny though since you generally carry on as though you are owner and administrator.
The Vet is a member of NB as are many others but there is nothing ordinary about The Vet. He has volunteered for the roll of troll hunter. You know the kind, those troll posters who come here to incite, lie, insult, and make concerted efforts to distort the purpose and deny the credibitlity and reputation of NewsBusters. I greatly admire The Vet for his tireless devotion to exposing the lies spewed here by endless scroll of trolls and re-tread idiots. I greatly admire his amazing skills at documenting troll activities and their many re-tread accounts.
Since you question his veracity and authority, I propose all NBers formally nominate The Vet for the Official Tiltle of NB Trolljegeren.
ALL IN FAVOR CLICK ......AYE
ALL AGAINST CLICK ...NAY
I will vote Aye. Funny though
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:59pm.
I will vote Aye. Funny though how he acts more trollish than most of those whom he sets out to "expose."
And if I'm such a troll, how have I not had my account deactivated by the actual mods and administrators?
Being a liberal Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:16pm.
Though I am surprised at your vote, being a liberal, would it not be AYE, AYE?
Still whining.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:30pm.
Iz no troll cuz no banned. onliz troll get ban.
Binky Braveheart: ....he acts more trollish than most of those...
Is really not very bright at all. Iz mumzietroll send to first day interwebz.
Troll Bashers. The worst enemy of trolls, Troll Bashers appear to possess an almost pathological hatred for trolls. Fully aware of the tools and tactics of trolling, Troll Bashers expose trolls whenever they see them. Often the first to identify Contrarians, and unforgiving in the pursuit of Deceptives, Troll Bashers are experienced and venomous. Often accused of being trolls themselves, Troll Bashers understand the difference between the initiation of trolling and the retaliation against it – and believe any amount of retaliatory abuse is justified when a troll rears its ugly head.
Iz gonna do better day 2. Honext mumzie. Gonna make trolljegeren look fishy, no no, udder wurd, ah, foolishez tomorrow. You fine out mumzietroll. gonna getz him tomorrow.
Aye
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:02pm.
A robust Aye
~Aye
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:46pm.
and a "hear, hear!" for cajun.
Aye aye.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:56pm.
Oopsies, I voted twice.
Sorry - just count the one then.
Aye!~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:18am.
I'll take your spare "aye," SoL. [Not your spare eye -- because that would be gross].
:)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Aye
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:17pm.
love The Vet.
I vote AYE!
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:55pm.
I vote AYE!
AYE
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 1:07pm.
AYE AYE AYE
AYE!
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:53pm.
.
AYE!
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:53pm.
.
Oops!
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 6:55pm.
Actually no, not oops! AYE again dammit!
Aye
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:08pm.
+
Aye
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 10:33pm.
This would be an affirmative - The Vet is NB's Trolljergeren.
Fire for effect, my NB brother.
~Never heard
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:50pm.
of this Benjy Compson guy.
"Dickensian bombast" is more like it.
He's a little bit like Quilp,
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:17am.
He's a little bit like Quilp, I suppose.
Also, you didn't fill out the subject line separately! JWF's gonna come for you next.
~What is a Quilp?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 4:07pm.
Yes I did; I split my sentence in half! Next you'll be telling me I'm not dressed appropriately for strolling the net. *sniff*
Well done.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:26am.
Well done.
Yes. You are.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:04pm.
Now tell us again why you advocate abortions including late term abortions right up to the moments before birth.
The Vet is truly a master of
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:52pm.
The Vet is truly a master of staying on topic. Abortion and cop-killing apologism in a thread concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. ADD much?
Yes, MUCH, along with other
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:58pm.
Yes, MUCH, along with other things.
Speaking of other things, "indivisible" seems to be lost in this hullabaloo.
Whatever cop killer defender.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:01pm.
You really think you are helping your buddies cause huh? Now go back to Cuba, Asata wants a grilled cheese sandwich from her dupe, the crypto-dummy balboa. And don't forget to cut off the crust. She will have no qualms about putting a hole in you after shooting a cop in cold blood.
Oh sorry, you were saying?
You don't like it troll...
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:59pm.
Take it up with the Admins. So much to whine about, so little space. Mumzietroll is gonna be busy with some very full diapers when she gets home.
I said close to the vest Binky. Close.
I wouldn't dream of taking it
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:03pm.
I wouldn't dream of taking it up with the admins. Either they find you amusing enough to keep around as the resident color commentator, or your ideological affinity is enough to spare you from getting the axe.
Also, if I tried all day, I couldn't make myself care enough or take you or myself (in our NB avatar incarnations, anyway) seriously enough to lodge a complaint. It doesn't matter.
Sure did care enough to whine through six posts.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:07pm.
But whatever.... You gots da busy making me look foolishnings, huh? Crybaby. Act like you suddenly don't care after whining for 2 hours. Yeah, I iz all teh foolish here. Wow.
I realize that I'm just
Submitted by JasonC on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:16pm.
I realize that I'm just playing into your hands here, but what exactly do you consider whining? When I'm criticized, I respond, same as you or anyone else. You're the self-styled troll hunter, but whose posts have caused the topic of discussion to go from the ethics of altering the Pledge to, well, pretty much anything but?
Yeah yeah, I know, "I iz teh stoopid binky poop bottom code pink panty bluuuuuuuhhhrrrgh."
I filled in the subject line.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 1:18pm.
Read it in the post here.
Writing Letters to Put Feet to the Fire
Submitted by swhite1951 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:19pm.
If you listen to the audio again you'll hear that they also eliminated the word "indivisible." While I agree that this was probably a blatant act, I can't see that having all of the leaders of the various denominations call for the firing of several people really serves a purpose. A stronger "apology" maybe? Or just have the people who did this suspended for a couple of days. But fired? Sounds a tad harsh. Somehow I can't see Peter or Paul or any of the Apostles doing this, nor could I see Jesus calling for such a thing. When you consider all of the filth and foulness that goes on every night on NBC, not mention the other networks, you have to wonder if this is really this thing to get incensed about.
Geez
Submitted by bsny on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:33pm.
I'm taking an educated guess that this will be the subject that gets Brent Bozell's panties in a twist during his blather sessions with Hannity and Fox and Fruitcakes this week.
bsny = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:41pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Suggestion to you:
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:02pm.
Don't watch
Oh look, the Brent Bozell hater popped in.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:23pm.
Why are we still tolerating this troll?
Hating on Brent Bozell
Fully linked quotes in the Internal Affairs forum.
bsny - Brent Bozell hater troll - another troll that has outstayed his welcome
Wow. I mean, I'm on record
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:20pm.
Wow. I mean, I'm on record as finding Bozell stuffy and over-moralizing, but these statements are ridiculous. Taunting and accusing someone of being gay (as if that's some shortcoming of character) when they clearly are not gay because one disagrees with his politics? Sounds like something conservatives would do. I'm quite disappointed to see someone who (I assume) identifies as liberal taking this same tack.
I'll back you up on this one Vet. At first I thought "Oh look, Vet's accusing someone with a differing opinion of being a troll again." But indeed, glad you flushed this out.
You can go with him troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:33pm.
Sounds like something conservatives would do. I'm quite disappointed to see someone who (I assume) identifies as liberal taking this same tack.
More sarcasm?
~Jason
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:06pm.
I know you've received your share of those accusations here, but I think that is due in large part to your time here as a gay marriage apologist. And I mean that word in it's true definition, not the modern, corrupted use.
Conservatives in general do not accuse ideological opponents of being homosexuals simply to be insulting. You need look no farther than the common liberal "teabagger" slur to see a real example of a broadly used smear against a significant portion of the population.
Back to 100%.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 12:06am.
Every troll I have identified as a troll worthy of being sent to troll hell in the Internal Affairs forum has indeed bent sent to troll hell.
NBC is one of the few networks that never offends me....
Submitted by thescoots on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:40pm.
I am neither insulted nor offended, intellectually or otherwise by NBC...nor MSNBC...not ever. Why? I never watch any of their programming. I wouldn't have a clue who said what when it comes to NBC.
BSNY, I'm taking an educated
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:41pm.
BSNY,
I'm taking an educated guess that you spend most of your time groveling outside the mosque or begging forgiveness from homeless blacks for being white.
Correct
Submitted by bsny on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:18pm.
I'm also spending time looking for your 47th chromosome. .
BSNY =~ /Troll/
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:29pm.
Do not feed the Troll
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Troll humor?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:30pm.
Hey BS, what did we say about your lame attempts at comebacks that have no basis in reality?
That's a really lame one there.
Give it up, liberal "humor" is not funny.
-Jon
You know what was funny
Submitted by bsny on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:12pm.
those Rush Limbaugh skits on the 1/2 hour comedy hour. Freakin' hilarous. NOT!
bsny = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:44pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
It's Mind Boggling
Submitted by Bourbeau on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:58pm.
Comcast has NBCU responding to viewers and customer complaint, suggesting the editing decision was made by a "small group of people". Really? Is that how it works and NBCU? The have the U.S. Open and want to air the Pledge of Allegiance and a few NBCU employees can sit down at a table and discuss how they can edit it? What's next, the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, how about Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. When will someone be held accountable for deliberate actions of intolerance aimed at segments of our population who happen to believe in their God.?
How many employees exactly do
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:08pm.
How many employees exactly do you want involved in the editing process for an intro to the U.S. Open coverage?
Don't Be So Naive!!!
Submitted by Bourbeau on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:19pm.
Do you honestly think a "small group of people" sat down and edited the Pledge of Allegiance. What corporation have you ever worked in that had anyone who even thought that might be a good idea? This was not a "small group of people". Like any corporation, Comcast/NBCU has a hierarchial chain of command and you can be rest assurred that this was not some casual conversation at the water cooler; there are strict guidelines for editing and the lines of responsibility are well defined. The point was, don't pass it off as a casual action by a few mischievolus employees; this was a management approved action and it requires Executive action to correct it.
This is a pretty severe reaction
Submitted by OffTheLows on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:27pm.
this is reminiscent of what naacp or color of change does with calls to fire or boycotts. I'm all for criticizing them for the omission, but firing people would likely just lead to the wrong people getting fired and result in another action that comes our way thanks to liberal though, obscenely large and over-reactive lawsuits.
Deliberate attempt to offend
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:34pm.
This was a deliberate attempt to offend. As stated above, this HAD to be approved by the higher ups(management) because anything that gets broadcast isn't done so at the worker level. If it happened once, it MIGHT BE an accident. Accidents can and do happen. But twice? No way it's an accident.
And for a large corporation to commit an offense like that, it's an actionable offense. Not to mention really bad Public Relations.
-Jon
Woohoohoo
Submitted by Hunter S. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:31pm.
I don't believe anyone is really offended by NBC NOT saying something. What is it exactly? What gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling every time someone says "Under GOd" during the pledge? Is this the way of proclaiming religious dominance over the rest of the nation? A few certainties -- were not one nation under God indivisible. We are divided, we are not one, and God has nothing to do with it.
Keep it to yourself
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:39pm.
The beauty of this country is that you are WELCOME to keep it to yourself if you don't want to say "Under God."
No one's forcing you to say it. Just leave the rest of us the hell alone that want to say it.
-Jon
No
Submitted by Hunter S. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:50pm.
The beauty of this country is our freedom from forced religion. But no you got to throw a hissyfit because your special words that mean absolute zero to millions of Americans wasn't included in the pledge. Demands people get fired. Enter the MRC again. We the people don't like you people, so shove it.
Not a partriot w/o God
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:37pm.
Based on the meaning of the words involved, I do not think someone who has no regard, respect and even hatred of God can even be patriotic. This Country was founded on Biblical principals, the God of our fathers; which is Christian. The word patriotic is based on the root word for father. If you don't respect what your fathers believe on a basic level such as the Christian God, you are not being, and can not be patriotic. Our rights are stated to come by nature from God and this is reinforced by our Constitution. They rights are not derived from the Constitution itself.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
All due respect,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:46pm.
With all due respect - I entirely disagree. Respecting people, ideas and beliefs in no way demands full adoption. In accepting the Christian foundation of this great nation and recognizing that these were brilliant ideas and the absolute best foundation for our society does not require me to believe in deity associated with these beliefs.
You can chose to say I can't be patriotic and that is your choice but I would ask that you give that a second thought considering there was a minority of our founders who also were not believers.
Agree Agnostic... That is part of my point.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:12pm.
You do have respect, so you are patriotic. Note you are agnostic & not atheist. Two different things as atheists are not respectful of God and tend to be against anything Christians stand for just in principal (lol). Note I never said (nor would I say) anything about "demand[ing] full adoption." That is how the media negatively paints Christians as characters in their TV shows. It is a choice once you see and honestly consider the evidence. And it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
And for the minority of founders who were "not Christians", in what they believe, in what the valued, in how they conducted their life, was 90% Christian more than likely. IMO, they could "out-Christian" most "Christians" today. Thus being only weak or denying faith in God or Christ, they lived by Christian values for all practical purposes. Today that pretty much constitutes being Christian (from a societal POV) if you exclude the spiritual aspect (which is important).
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
How would someone who doesn't
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:45pm.
How would someone who doesn't believe in god be respecftful of something they don't believe? That would be cognitive dissonance. I don't believe man is responsible at all for the earth's warming trend. Should I then respect that man is responsible for the earth's warming trend?
here's how
Submitted by Hunter S. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:17pm.
You respect their belief in God, and in turn they call you immoral, communist, socialist, fascist, and of course this gem:
"And it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than a Christian."
You MUST show respect for the disrespected disrespectful.
WTF is this, Troll Zombie Week @NB?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:28pm.
So Zippers the 27X retread troll re-emerges again like a locust (yawn), but now the previously banned Incestmo troll has BEEN REINSTATED for some bizarre reason?
I'm at a loss, friends.
And they are calling other folks intolerant?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:45pm.
While ridiculing others. Isnt this why they were banned this first few dozen times?
I hear you brother.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:56pm.
The Admins need to come down into the weeds. We are getting swamped. And the lax attitude about letting in retreads don't help.
Banned? When was I banned,
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:19pm.
Banned? When was I banned, and how would you know if I were?
Everyone knows
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:50am.
You profile goes away. So how did you do it, how did you convince the admins your worthy of being here? Because I dont see it,
Here's how you tell, bright boy:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:40am.
<Click here for really excellent demonstration>
Just like your account about 6 weeks ago.
Now stop denying it or I will sic the Vet Wayback Machine on your ass.
Even though some of the
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:40pm.
Even though some of the Founders didn't believe in god?
Interesting...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:52pm.
Like who, sick freak?
With citations to sources I can evaluate.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
slobbery snobbery will get you nowhere
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:54am.
How many times is the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution?
None, but He is mentioned 3
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:12am.
None, but He is mentioned 3 times in the Declaration of Independence. That's the document the USA was founded on.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Then
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:20am.
Then how can feelings for God one way or the other relate to constitutionality?
I guess you don't understand
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:31am.
I guess you don't understand the Declaration or the Constitution, do you ?
Now I know where you think you are steering this conversation, but allow me to get right to the point. This nation was founded on the idea that our rights come from God. If you don't understand that, nothing else anyone says will help you.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Both actually
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:42am.
And a bit more than you, apparently
Neither document says anything about a Christian God.
Shut up Dead Angry Black Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:48am.
Go find a new website to prey on women by obsessing over their children just like you used to do. Predator.
O O O The Angry Black Zipper Vet
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:50am.
Shut up.
Wrong move again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:55am.
You need to go practice on another site. An internet monster like you that threatens to disclose the personal information of other users forgets what it is like NOT to be used to being called a predator and a blackmailing monster that will stop at nothing to keep his account.
That includes threatening women by obsessing so much about their children that you are told to stop acting like a pedophile.
God is all over the place in the State Constitutions.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:46am.
He was real busy when the states were writing their constitutions. Dead Zippers LIES again.
God in the State Constitutions
The lying internet predatory monster that is Dead Zippers forgets there are 50 other founding documents in this country.
Pack Sand Dead Zippers. YOU LIE AGAIN.
Yes, Mr. Vet, but only 49 out of 50 states do so.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:53am.
/s
Actually, it says "Creator,"
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:06pm.
Actually, it says "Creator," not "God," deliberately so.
Creepy Incest Apolgist
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:54pm.
It says God, Creator and Divine Providence. If you don't understand what Creator and Divine Providence mean, then you shouldn't even be trying to discuss this issue.
UPDATE: And you're still a Creepy Incest Apologist
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Your statement: "This nation
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:46pm.
Your statement: "This nation was founded on the idea that our rights come from God."
The text of the Declaration: "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."
Not God, Creator.
Additionally, the previous mention of God is this "Nature's God," which again, is not Christianity. It reflects Deism.
"Divine Providence" also does not represent or reflect the Christian God.
So, you strike out on all three.
Not God, Creator.
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:55pm.
So whats the difference?
Well certainly to a
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:04pm.
Well certainly to a Christian, God is the Creator, and using the word "God" would usually imply the religion of Christianity. To a Deist, it's a recognition of a non-religious entity. As much as I hate wikipedia, this little bit on Deism might help clarify it for you: "the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator." (and a little more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States)
"Reason and observation." Remember that this is the period of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. The Deist idea of a god - Creator, Nature's God - was more apropos to the thinking of the time among learned peoples than that of the Christian God. If you're interested, Joseph Campbell's books on myth and The Power of Myth are good sources for the explanation and exposition of this idea.
As I said, if you don't
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 12:11am.
As I said, if you don't understand it, don't try to discuss it.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Once.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:43am.
California
Preamble:
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Up yours Dead Zippers that lives in California. Why don't you release some more personal information about me and MrShy and others.
As if I know who you are, as if I care
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:51am.
What kind of information do you think I have on you?
Wha? Who? Huh?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:56am.
It's getting old, Zippers. Real old.
And really?
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:56am.
California's Constitution of 1850 predates and supersedes the US Constitution?
Did not say it did, did i? Dead Angry Black Zippers LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:04am.
slobbery snobbery will get you nowhere
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:54am.
How many times is the Christian God mentioned in the Constitution?
+++
Once.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:43am.
California
Preamble:
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Up yours Dead Zippers that lives in California. Why don't you release some more personal information about me and MrShy and others.
+++
This the theme for your 27th account? Lying like there is no tomorrow?
Predator. Go prey elsewhere. I am neither female nor do I have children for you to threaten.
Source it
Submitted by Hunter S. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:14am.
Do it. Which personal information have I released? Source it. Link it. Or shut up and keep your filthy fantasies to yourself.
No, asswipe. Enter the 1954 Joint Resolution of Congress.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:28pm.
I think you'd be better off staying focused on gay marriage... at least that would lead to something tangible for you.
Now if you could only get your fellow Californians to approve it....
Shut up, Zippers v 27.0.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:40pm.
As usual, nobody cares what you believe.
One NATION Under God AND Indivisible...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:38pm.
Just try passing a secession law in your state. The Feds will not allow a state to leave the "union". Pretty much defines indivisible doesn't it? Where were you on 11 September 2001 when we all decided to be Americans once and for all, without hyphens? The lamestream media wasted no time in getting back to hate politics, hate speech, and drawing all of the lines between us that give them and the anti God left all of their power.
Under God you say(type)? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals, values, and beliefs. Your left wing hate media has been destroying this as their communist, socialist, and fascist heroes have instructed them in order to destroy this country as they have all sworn to do. Get rid of God, morals, values, and beliefs, and you control the people. See Hitler. Stalin. Mussolini. Mao. Lenin. Ho Chi Minh. SADDAM Hussein. Pol Pot. Milosevic. Aidid. Castro. Che Guevara, the fat dictator in Venezuela, et al. NONE of these glorious leaders would allow their captive people/comrades/subjects/citizens/WORKERS to believe in God, as the demanded that the masses believe in them and their regimes to provide for them. Just like B. HUSSEIN O'bama, the Irish guy from Kenya. But NOT tied to any "Typical White Person" because that's how they'll do ya.."
**** Notice that there are NO AMERICANS on any monster of history lists. Regardless of what the American public school systems teach....*****
The silent majority believes in God, and is deeply divided from the leftist agenda. So you are right, but oh so wrong in your statement. Religious dominance? No, historical accuracy, order and discipline based on morals and values of Judeo-Christian religion. You want religious dominance, go to any muslim country and live under sharia law. Look it up, before they behead your infidel body. Tell them that their god has nothing to do with anything. I dare you.
Congress approved the "under God" in 1957 along with the entire pledge. Who are you o change it without passing a law? After all, if the government says it's ok...
Hey Hunter S, wake up and smell the free fresh air that this one Nation under God provides to you.
O'bama, the Irish guy from Kenya
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 6:51am.
LOL. Good tag line.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Great post USMC. And we
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:24pm.
Great post USMC.
And we need to take the schools back & actually teach history! We would not be in this position if kids heard the whole truth. Not some skewed blame America story.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
So NBC...?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:35pm.
NBC nows determines the content of the Pledge of Allegiance? When exactly did NBC Sports become the Congress of the United States of America?
Determine who made this indefensible decision and fire them -- not just for the decision itself but for their arrogance in thinking it was their's to make.
When did they ever say they
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:40pm.
When did they ever say they could? They edited out a few words for an intro to golf coverage. That's all.
The Pledge of Allegiance is "just a few words"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:43pm.
Here it is in a nutshell, folks.
No, not what I said.
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:51pm.
No, not what I said.
OK, on the count of three, say 'under God'...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:59pm.
I got .7 seconds - what did you get?
Hey sickoflibs..
Submitted by USMC8411 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:10am.
Let's edit out a few words in the next round of voting rules! Edit them to read, only whites can vote. Or only white male landowners can vote.
Under God is no big deal, neither is white male landowners, right? Only words...
Liberals suck. They really get angry when you throw their words right back at 'em.
While we're at it, edit the constitution too. Delete the freedom of the press! Delete the non-existent "Wall of Separation" clause. Leave out the Interstate Commerce Clause. Leave out the words, "For the public good". Drop the abortion language!
Dismiss the War Powers act. B. Hussein O'bama does.
Liberals are only liberals until another liberal screws them.
NBC
Submitted by Bull Moose Prog... on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:40pm.
Unfortunately I can not boycott what I already have the good sense not to watch.
Has Comcast put out a
Submitted by d1carter on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:49pm.
Has Comcast put out a statement about this yet...?
Send them all to a sharia country...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:51pm.
The mainstream liberal linguini for a spine, anti ANY god, were successful in taking the "islamic" out of the islamic terrorists who seek to destroy all of us God Fearing infidels!
Just another reason why televised golfing sucks. Golf sucks, barry golfs, therefore barry sucks too.
It just happens to be hip and acceptable in our Country to assault, belittle, discriminate against, waterboard, impugn, spit on, make fun of, BULLY, and all of the other things that the libs say muslims deal with here, but never have any proof of, the Christian religion.
So I say, Send them all to a sharia country, and have them brazenly crusade to remove allah from everything, especially when those states are governed by religion. Separate sharia from Saudi Arabia, I dare you...
Much ado about nothing.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:33pm.
Much ado about nothing.
Because...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:53pm.
...because absolutely, positively nothing means s*** to you, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
don't sweat the small stuff people
Submitted by markinirvine on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:56pm.
don't sweat the small stuff people - Americans are still dying every day in the Middle East, trying to protect us from Al Qaida, the Taliban and other terrorists ... that stuff is more important than this, IMHO.
Agreed. Certainly not worth
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:07pm.
Agreed. Certainly not worth trying to get someone fired over.
Obama leaves out God on Gettysburg address
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 11:43am.
Besides Obama dropped from "Creator" from a quotation from the Declaration of Independence more than once, he has also dropped "under God" from the Gettysburg address.
What a disaster he is bringing upon us! When you read the OT Bible, sometimes people think, "why don't they learn," as they keep getting immoral as generations pass, and then of course, God punishes them. Then Israel is redeemed for a while once they "see the light" again. But the cycle repeats. There ya go. We never learn. Once we have it easy there is no need to rely on God. Then the next generation becomes more "liberal" and "progresses" away from God's law. The idea to be a moral people is there to protect us from ourselves. Not to restrain us from having a good life.
http://theobamayoudontknow.blogspot.com/2010/10/now-under-god-dropped-fr...
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Aw, Go Suck A Lemon...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:38am.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as religious bigotry, seeing as how religion is a choice from the get-go (except for the Jewish people, to which whom are uniquely a race and religion). This is just another example of lefty reactionaryism disguised as indignant outrage because "Oh my, they left God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, we gotta do something." It's called free speech, you scatterbrain. Nobody every said you had a right to not be offended, so why don't you go back to your corner and go suck a lemon until your face turns sour, huh?
Ignore the 7stickstroll
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 1:32am.
This is a Catholic hating bigot that is on his 2nd account after being banned for viciously smearing the Pope.
How Ironic. Real7riverstix, MEET lemon!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 10:44am.
Need I say more, your own quote: "It's called free speech, you scatterbrain. Nobody every said you had a right to not be offended, so why don't you go back to your corner and go suck a lemon until your face turns sour, huh?"
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.