August 24, 2010

The Stars and Stripes Forever

“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”



I thought this was fitting to the current climate of primaries "that has defined the 2010 midterm elections."

If you haven't read the Defence of Fort McHenry (The Stars and Stripes Forever) Here is the poem in its entirety:

1 O! say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
2 What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
3 Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
4 O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
5 And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
6 Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there --
7 O! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
8 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

9 On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
10 Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
11 What is that which the breeze o'er the towering steep,
12 As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
13 Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
14 In full glory reflected now shines on the stream --
15 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
16 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

17 And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
18 That the havock of war and the battle's confusion
19 A home and a country should leave us no more?
20 Their blood has wash'd out their foul foot-steps' pollution,
21 No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
22 From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave;
23 And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
24 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

25 O! thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
26 Between their lov'd home, and the war's desolation,
27 Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
28 Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
29 Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
30 And this be our motto -- "In God is our trust!"
31 And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
32 O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

The followup video speaks volumes also. I will remain hopeful.

Within the constitutions there were terms like "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...". God was referenced for, not just a few states, but EVERY SINGLE STATE in the union.

ALL 50 states reference God in their Constitutions

26 comments:

  1. Wow, I actually get to be the first to comment!

    So, the video starts with the speaker acknowledging that "In God We Trust" was added in 1956, but then moves on to a rather impressive rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" (I really have to give the guy credit; that is one HARD song to sing), where they seem to be saying that since Christian influences are found throughout old documents, songs, speeches, etc., that we are a "Christian Nation."

    But the point most Christians never seem to understand is that it is irrelevant that most people in the US are Christian, nor is it relevant how many of the Founding Fathers were Christian. This country was founded with religious freedom as one of its tenants. People can believe whatever they want and not be persecuted for it.

    I doubt any of them would feel as strongly about it if our motto was "In Allah We Trust" or "In Vishnu We Trust," and if they really want to get a picture for how wrong it is to set up a country as a theocracy, they only need look at Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nathan,

    >>I doubt any of them would feel as strongly about it if our motto was "In Allah We Trust" or "In Vishnu We Trust," and if they really want to get a picture for how wrong it is to set up a country as a theocracy, they only need look at Saudi Arabia.

    Actually, I think you are looking at things completely backwards here.

    Freedom is far more important then theocracy, according to God and Christians.

    One piece of evidence that this is indeed a Christian Nation is that this country was founded with religious freedom as one of its tenants.

    The LAST thing I would want, as a Christian, is to refuse your rights from God. I would fight to the death to preserve liberty and those certain inalienable rights.

    Thanks for pointing that out, even though it was in a flipped manner.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One piece of evidence that this is indeed a Christian Nation is that this country was founded with religious freedom as one of its tenants.
    What "religious freedom" did the OT god advocate? None. The new testament wasn't much better: Luke 19:12-27

    Religious freedom was more an Enlightenment value than the bible.

    Besides, if america was a xian nation, the documents like the Constitution, etc. would show it. Instead, they had to add a bunch of things ("in god we trust" and "under god") into their pledge and their currency way afterwards.

    Plus, if the founding fathers were xian, you'd all still be british subjects. Jesus said to render unto ceasar what is Ceasar's. You people had the "Boston Tea party".

    The bible says to submit to the king (ex: Ecc 10:20, yet you people had a revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you guys are a Christian nation, why didn't the founders put God in the pledge in the first place?

    And somewhat relatedly, "E pluribus unum" has a much better ring to it than "In God we trust"(also added in the 50's).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reynold et al,

    >>Besides, if [A]merica was a xian nation, the documents like the Constitution, etc. would show it. Instead, they had to add a bunch of things ("in god we trust" and "under god") into their pledge and their currency way afterwards.

    Obviously, you just have not brushed up on your American history. I applaud you zeal but if you were honest about your claim here then you would be forced to admit that America is indeed a Christian Nation because the Constitutions did in fact show it. Within the constitutions there were terms like "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...". God was referenced for, not just a few states but, EVERY SINGLE STATE in the union.

    ALL 50 states reference God in their Constitutions

    So, thanks for admitting that America is a Christian Nation Reynold and Brummer, this is one day that God is glorified and I thank you both for that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan:

         So, what you're saying is that the states were explicitly christian but that the nation was not. You will not find such references in the United States Constitution, even if they are found in the constitutions of the several states.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah and I didn't even mention anything about the consitution or the various state constitutions so I don't see how that addresses anything I said.

    ReplyDelete
  8.      It should also be noted that Dan likes to say people are "false converts." Even if the nation or the several states pretended to be christian, it just wasn't true. A set of christian colonies couldn't revolt against a king undoubtedly appointed by the christian god. According to Dan's argument. The US must have been a false-convert nation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pvb,

    >>You will not find such references in the United States Constitution, even if they are found in the constitutions of the several states.

    Funny how you keep pressing that it was merely "several states" that mention God.

    The fact is that it was ALL 50 STATES that proclaim God.

    So what does that mean?

    That the UNITED STATES believe in God. Your "spin" fails.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan:

         "That the UNITED STATES believe in God."
         Incorrect. Even if all members of a group happen to be christian, it does not require that the group, itself, be christian. That would imply including god in the "state constitution" being a requirement before statehood was allowed. Interestingly, that would also mean that such inclusion would be an act to placate the powers-that-be.
         You overlooked another thing. The formation of the nation was done in a decidedly "un-christian" manner. At most, the U.S. is a "false convert" nation. Or do you accept that there is such a thing as an ex-christian?
         BTW I think your new image is appropriate. Just like christianity, it is an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pvb,

    >>At most, the U.S. is a "false convert" nation.

    You have a point since nations cannot be Christian because they don't have a soul, its a collective of souls. Individuals, on the other hand, can be collectively. So the collective people of this nation was Christian but did not want to force and have a State religion.

    >>BTW I think your new image is appropriate. Just like [C]hristianity, it is an illusion.

    Hmm, didn't think of it like that. Was going with "not everything is as it appears" Or "make sure you are on the right path"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pvb,

    I guess the argument wasn't really that we are a "Christian Nation" but that we are a Nation of Christians and need to get back to the values we once held so true and dear to our hearts. I have faith that this current climate will not last.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A) If God wont send people to Hell for denying things they're not certain of, I'm in the clear. So are most of the atheists who read this tripe. Sweet!

    B) Notice the fundie backpedal from his "Christian Nation" argument. Priceless!

    So much for the certainty of special revelation!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan:

         There are quite a few non-christians in this nations. We are not a "nation of christians." And there are certain "values" that christians hold dear to their hearts (like slavery and swordpoint conversions) that I want to see this nation stay far away from. We don't need a repeat of the Salem witch trials. The inquisition also stemmed from a government run by christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think Patrick Henry summed it up best,

    “It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” --Patrick Henry

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan: Patrick Henry did NOT say that. Why don't you ever do any research?

    The first modern source for the quote is likely David Barton, who apparently saw this article and mistakenly thought that the third paragraph was a quote from Patrick Henry rather than a statement by a fellow Christian nation advocate writing about Patrick Henry.

    Guess how Barton acted when he got called out on that?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan:
    Obviously, you just have not brushed up on your American history. I applaud you zeal but if you were honest about your claim here then you would be forced to admit that America is indeed a Christian Nation because the Constitutions did in fact show it. Within the constitutions there were terms like "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...". God was referenced for, not just a few states but, EVERY SINGLE STATE in the union.

    ALL 50 states reference God in their Constitutions

    So, thanks for admitting that America is a Christian Nation Reynold and Brummer, this is one day that God is glorified and I thank you both for that.

    Dan, how stupid are you?

    Did you look at the DATES of those state constitutions?

    And NONE of those were the constitution for the whole country. Those were individual state constitutions, most of whom put that in far after your country was established.

    And you talk about my lack of honesty? Shit....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wem,

    >>If God wont send people to Hell for denying things they're not certain of, I'm in the clear. So are most of the atheists who read this tripe. Sweet!

    That is just it, you already know the truth and are without excuss. (Romans 1:18-21)

    B) I clarified with the quote

    >>So much for the certainty of special revelation!

    Red herring too small, throw it back.

    I am certain the Bible (special revelation) exists.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reynold,

    >>Dan: Patrick Henry did NOT say that.

    Fine I retracted the quote credit until I "research" it more. The link that you offered though was not complete, it still is unsubstantiated. That scan did not reveal the other pages to make the case or provide anything else. So, until I get a copy of the "American Mercury" or other source I will remain skeptical. I am sure you can relate to that logic. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan:

         "I am certain the [b]ible (special revelation) exists."
         The defense stipulates that there exists a text called "the bible." However, the prosecution has yet to produce any evidence that it is any type of revalation, special or otherwise.
         Presiding judge: If council has any such evidence, let him present it.
         "That is just it, you already know the truth and are without [excuse.]"
         Your honor a text of dubious merit written by anonymous sources long before my client was born can hardly be considered evidence of what my client did or did not know.
         Presiding judge: Agreed. Does council have any meaningful evidence to present to this court?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fine I retracted the quote credit until I "research" it more. The link that you offered though was not complete, it still is unsubstantiated. That scan did not reveal the other pages to make the case or provide anything else.
    Right...sure, it didn't give any information at all, except the page number, the book and the source.

    So, until I get a copy of the "American Mercury" or other source I will remain skeptical. I am sure you can relate to that logic. :7)
    Too bad it's not the "logic" you used when you first dug that quote up, eh?

    You didn't seem to bother "doing research" about that quote when you first dug it up, did you?

    Then when I show evidence that it's bogus, you pretend to all of a sudden care about how authentic it is! It seems that if it's for your side, you'll jump to it, without checking things out. When it goes against your side, then you'll have to "check it out".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pvb,

    Asserting yourself as the judge and placing God on trial is hazardous. I don't recommend it.

    God is the Judge and We are on trial. Keep that perspective.

    You cannot, as the criminal, arbitrarily dethrone the Judge and appoint yourself the judge. That itself is a criminal action.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Reynold,

    >>It seems that if it's for your side, you'll jump to it, without checking things out. When it goes against your side, then you'll have to "check it out".

    How ironic is that coming from you, a proud member of SFN.

    I remembered the words of the quote and typed this into Google "Patrick Henry It can not be emphasized" the quote came up and I clicked on the 5th query to get the quote. It was that simple. It is not some conspiracy as you claim. I concede to your point, with reservations, what more do you want? Do you want my blind faith from me? Forget it!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan quoting me:
    >>It seems that if it's for your side, you'll jump to it, without checking things out. When it goes against your side, then you'll have to "check it out".


    How ironic is that coming from you, a proud member of SFN.
    Nothing ironic about it. We check shit out. You apparently do not. At least not very well.

    I remembered the words of the quote and typed this into Google "Patrick Henry It can not be emphasized" the quote came up and I clicked on the 5th query to get the quote. It was that simple. It is not some conspiracy as you claim.
    Where did I claim a "conspiracy"? I was only talking about you.

    One person does not a conspiracy make.

    Now, whether your picking that quote up without doing a good job of checking up on it's authenticity was your incompotence or just willfull ignorance, I have no clue, nor care.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Asserting yourself as the judge and placing God on trial is hazardous. I don't recommend it.

    God is the Judge and We are on trial. Keep that perspective.

    You cannot, as the criminal, arbitrarily dethrone the Judge and appoint yourself the judge. That itself is a criminal action.

    Right...but what if this "judge" is a mass murderer in his own right? Whereas most of the "criminals" he's sentencing (ie. us) are not?

    What kind of a judge has more blood on his hands then the person he's sentencing?

    Your holy book says that your god is morally perfect. We're just trying to see if he measures up to his own standards. If he doesn't it's not our fault for pointing it out.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan:

         "Asserting yourself as the judge and placing [a god] on trial is hazardous. I don't recommend it."
         You might want to recheck my post as I have clearly taken your statements and cast them in the role of a prosecutor -- albeit not a very competent one.
         "You cannot, as the criminal, arbitrarily dethrone the [j]udge and appoint yourself the judge. That itself is a criminal action."
         First off, I placed myself in the role of council for the defense. Second, and more importantly, a judge acting within the scope of his proper authority must adhere to the rule of law himself. If you, as prosecutor were to try to present a case in the fashion that you have, any presiding judge would agree that you have yet to present any evidence. Making assertions about the knowledge or lack of same in a defendant is tricky at best. Supporting those assertions only with a text (written centuries before the defendant was born) claiming that he "knows" something and is "without excuse" is completely inadmissable.
         Incidentally, I remember you appointing yourself judge for a kangaroo court before.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>