Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can honestly say that except for the concluding line, I have rarely read so much incoherent quibbling crammed into a mere seven paragraphs in my life.
Well, if you decide to invent your own definitions, why not call him a nuclear physicist?
I did not mention his military jobs, because that was not the question you asked. But his political career started early, and included both appointed and elected offices.
No idea what you're looking at. I have no real energy one way or the other regarding the Arizona Law. I care only about the Constitution, so I get involved in the discussion when people try to pretend that they can Amend the Constitution with a mere statute.
As we used to say at Ranger School, "Nice attack. Wrong hill."
Don't know. Don't care.
Who tried to amend the Constitution with a law? It wasn't the Arizona legislature but then you seem to think they did. Why do you think that is the case? Have you read any of that bill or you just against it?
I read it. The only question is, why should anybody believe it?
What evidence do you actually have that anything happened to school texts beginning in 1933? Other than an unsupported assertion by an anonymous guy on an internet forum?
You are welcome to think whatever you want. The issue is what can you defend with evidence? His "Christianity" would be far more compelling had he used the words "Jesus" and "Christ" a little more often. But we find almost without exception that overtly Christian "quotations" attributed to him are pious frauds. The complete fiction regarding his "last words" stands as a particularly instructive example of the willingness of Christians to invent lies designed to claim him as one of theirs.
It is clear that the effort to "spin" his religion has been much more intense among evangelical Christians than those of a more secular bent.
It is an unfortunate thing, then, that what is or is not true is not dependent on what you can personally handle. The guy simply was not orthodox, and his peculiarities of practice were notable enough to have concerned his contemporaries and been recorded.
But beyond a doubt, nothing in the General Order that the OP centered on is particularly Christian.
I am going to have to ask you just how much you have studied the history of that period of our nation? I am going to have to ask you what the dates of print were in the books you used and who wrote them? I have read up a bit on the period, enough that many students of the period in college have been wowed at what I knew about it. Of course, most of my knowledge is about the Constitutional period and that seems to be because they studied from much newer books than I did.
As for the books printed in the 30s I think that it is possible that you can find quite a bit of difference in them and those printed before that time period.
Some people seem to think that many things I can't find in Madison's book about the Constitutional Convention are true and I just can't go with that. Do you have a copy of Madison's book that causes people to call him the Father of the Constitution? It is not great reading but the best there is about the meeting. Whoops, I forgot that he was long before the progressives who have been in charge of all the books since the 30s. He was probably lying, huh?
In other words he was playing politician and knew that his soldiers were mostly Christians. Is that what you mean? He couldn't possibly have been one of those horrible things, could he?
Somebody is reading too much into this quote. He does not mention Christ, but a "Supreme Being." Washington was a deist, who believed the Supreme being created the world but then left it alone. As opposed to modern-day conservatives who would like to make the U.S. a "Christian Nation," such thinkers included freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
Secular progressives want to believe all that crap about the Founders but I find their belief very hard to accept since most of the white people in the nation in 1787 were Christians and if not God, what did cause that group of people to gather in Philadelphia that summer.
Well, I'm an ultra-conservative, not a progressive, and I don't believe that crap.
People were Christian because it was either be Christian, or die a horrible death. It isn't like you had a choice in the matter. I mean, if people even thought you gave a side-ways glance to a black cat, they'd torture you until you confessed to being a satanist and in league with the devil and a witch.
I don't think you understand that at all. Even you might have been tortured for some of the comments that you've made.
You see, that is the great thing about 9-11.
For just a few seconds, you were terrorized, you were horrified, you felt fear.
For just a few seconds.
Imagine living your entire life in that kind of fear.
Well, millions of people did. Millions lived under that kind of fear of persecution by Catholics and Puritans and Huguenots and all the other wackos. And millions of them were horribly killed.
It wasn't the hand of god guiding them, it was greed.
You want to know why Cornwallis didn't invade the Southern Colonies?
Because they were already at war. It was a civil war within a civil war. The Tories versus the Rebels versus the Indentured Servants, Slaves and Sharecroppers (the vast majority of whom were white but many blacks stood shoulder to shoulder with them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
It worked so well for over 200 years and so many others have tried to copy it but failed because they weren't Christian.
The fact that they weren't Christians had nothing to do with it. They failed because of cultural immaturity (ie they were still organized as a tribal society which is why the US will ultimately fail in Iraq and Afghanistan), geography, or interference from Colonial Powers, like Britain, France and even the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I just hope that if you people win you are able to fight off the Islamists at least as long as you live.
The Islamists?
Are you kidding me? The Islamists are the least of your worries.
Your worries are 1.5 Billion angry Chinese that the "Great Christian Nation" screwed over when they colonized China, and had big signs in parks saying, "NO DOGS OR CHINESE ALLOWED"
And 1 Billion angry Indians that the "Great Christian Nation" constantly screwed over and nearly caused WW III thanks to Kissinger's duplicity.
And 1 Billion angry Africans the "Great Christian Nation" has screwed over by meddling in their governmental affairs and converting those countries from net-exporters of food to net-importers of food so you can have chocolate and sugar cane and coffee.
And 1 Billion angry South Americans the "Great Christian Nation" has screwed over by murdering their heads of state and installing puppet governments, just so US corporations wouldn't have to pay taxes.
The "Great Christian Nation" kept telling the South American countries it couldn't build a trans-Andean highway and rail-line, because it would take away profits from the Panama Canal.
Well, guess, what, the Chinese bought the Panama Canal, and they're building a trans-Andean highway, rail-line and oil/natural gas pipeline.
How do you think those countries feel about being lied to for 30 years? Well, they ain't too happy, which is why the US is getting run out of there (and Africa) and the Chinese are taking over.
So, the Islamists are the least of your problems. If fact, you ought to try and be their friends, because about 25 years from now, those 15 single-cash crop dictatorships that make up less than half the Islamic countries might be your only friends on the planet.
Quote:
The enemy numbered six hundred-including women and children-and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States." - Mark Twain
You just think about that for a while. What goes around boomerangs right back in your face.
So, the Islamists are the least of your problems. If fact, you ought to try and be their friends, because about 25 years from now, those 15 single-cash crop dictatorships that make up less than half the Islamic countries might be your only friends on the planet.
You just think about that for a while. What goes around boomerangs right back in your face.
There's something else we won't find, in a history book today.
You're right, they just keep coming back, that's why denial about being a Christian Nation maybe important in, today's world.
Quote:
'Their [only] fault, their crime, is recognising Jesus Christ as the most divine Saviour... and of professing Him as the True Faith.'
Quote:
Many slaves converted to Islam, though, as Morgan put it, this only meant they were 'freed from the Oar, tho' not from [their] Patron's Service.' Christian women who had been taken into the pasha's harem often 'turned Turk' to stay with their children, who were raised as Muslims.
The only way to know where you're going is to not forget the past history in which you came from.
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
I read it. The only question is, why should anybody believe it?
What evidence do you actually have that anything happened to school texts beginning in 1933? Other than an unsupported assertion by an anonymous guy on an internet forum?
Now that I am not anonymous let me tell you a brief story about something that happened recently. There is a thread in this forum about Abe Lincoln. I was reading it and I was doing some verifiable research. (as always) And I came across this UNDER GOD - "Bulletproof" George Washington (1775) not exactly Abe Lincoln, but interesting enough. So I book marked in my folder that I named History. And I went on about my business.
About a week later Roy here he begins a thread, looks interesting, so I see what Roy has to say and I remember the historical story on George Washington...
Quote:
This story of God’s divine protection and of Washington’s open gratitude could be found in virtually all school textbooks until 1934. Now few Americans have read it. Washington often recalled this dramatic event that helped shape his character and confirm God’s call on his life.
Now see funny thing about this is I recall the story. Given my age we all know that I am a 70's child. However, I graduated from a Christian High School. Now I am not for certain, but I do believe the historical account of what happened to Pres. Washington, could be something I learned the last two years of my high school and not something that was presented in the public schools. But again, not for sure...I am sure about one thing...I had forgotten of the story until I read it again while on my search for material on Abe Lincoln. Also, I am amazed that other people do not know of it. I don't know if Roy knew about it and he's older than dirt. (no offense Roy---soon I will too be older than dirt)
Texas history books are being re-written over the next few years, there is a thread on the subject and news articles. So, if they are now back tracking and doing a re-write---that means that in some point in time, they have been re-wrote before.
Now I'm hearing something about Texas text books are usually adopted by other states at some point in time. Which we can conclude if that is a true statement then the students all over the United States are learning the same history.
Are you with me here, of did I babble again like you said before?
The bottom line, the evidence in which you seek, is printed on that web site. If you have a problem with what they say on their web site that is an issue to be taken up with them. That's not my problem.
Good question. Or in George Washington's case his use of 'the' Supreme Being? If a person believes in the Bible and believes the Bible was written through the inspiration of God (I Timothy) then it should be known that there can be only One God, the Supreme Being....One.
When I (and maybe this is just a me thing, dunno) see 'the' church I automatically understand 'the' as an encompass use to include all religions that may be held in 'the' church depending on the context in which the words are used.
Define the context in which words are used to understand what the person means when they say...'the' church, or 'the' Supreme Being'.
Could be many, could be one.
If my father wanted me to watch 'the' car and there is only One car in the driveway. I know without asking, to which car he refers.
In the world of the Heavenly Father there is only but one God and one church. One group of people. Even though there are many people with many different views. It doesn't matter. "I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father, but through Me'.
The constitution protects the many the same as it protects the one.
Your logic is flawed. I respect your religious views, but you should respect other religions enough to understand that Supreme Being is a generic reference, not a specific reference. And you should understand that the majority of the world's citizens do not live "in the world of the Heavenly Father" where "there is only but one God and one church." Because you believe it to be true doesn't mean that it is true. Your convictions are laudable, but argumentatively unpersuasive.
There's been one rattling around in the US Congress since 2009, and there's been more recent talk in Arizona. Have you not been paying attention?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
It wasn't the Arizona legislature but then you seem to think they did. Why do you think that is the case? Have you read any of that bill or you just against it?
We are not talking about the same bill. I am talking about the ones to strip the children of illegal immigrants of their constitutional birthright citizenship.
I have read the other bill (the Arizona Law) and I have no energy on it one way or the other.
I am going to have to ask you just how much you have studied the history of that period of our nation? I am going to have to ask you what the dates of print were in the books you used and who wrote them? I have read up a bit on the period, enough that many students of the period in college have been wowed at what I knew about it. Of course, most of my knowledge is about the Constitutional period and that seems to be because they studied from much newer books than I did.
It "seems to be?" So... you don't really know? Are you just guessing?
Again... if you actually have evidence for some sort of seismic shift in civics textbooks in 1933, please present it. As far as I can tell, you are just miking it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
As for the books printed in the 30s I think that it is possible that you can find quite a bit of difference in them and those printed before that time period.
I do not particularly care what you "believe" if it is not based on evidence. I care only about what you can show. And to this point, you have shown exactly nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Some people seem to think that many things I can't find in Madison's book about the Constitutional Convention are true and I just can't go with that. Do you have a copy of Madison's book that causes people to call him the Father of the Constitution?
As a matter of fact, yes I do.
But I also know that his "book" has nothing to do with him being called "The Father of the Constitution." He gets that title because he actually was the principle author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights... not because he left notes on the convention.
I have to tell you... at this point I am not among those "wowed" at what you know about the period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
It is not great reading but the best there is about the meeting. Whoops, I forgot that he was long before the progressives who have been in charge of all the books since the 30s. He was probably lying, huh?
Madison was a "progressive."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which we can conclude if that is a true statement then the students all over the United States are learning the same history.
