Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

If thy blog post offend thee, pluck it out

By postDigital in Politics
Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:17:30 AM EST
Tags: chemstick of gop enlightenment, debilabaiter, party of potty peepers, debiibeatsoffinhishand (all tags)

Hide Palin under a Bush?
I'm going to let her shine.

Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad

After Sarah Heath Palin had been announced as John McCain's VP pick, Palin's answers given in a July 31, 2006, Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire, published by Eagle Forum Alaska, began to make the rounds. Her answer to Question 11 was astonishing for its Revisionary American History assinity:

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.


The Eagle Forum an organisation founded and presided over by the She-ite Christian Witch, Phyllis Schlafly. The Eagle Forum Alaska is a chapter of it, and its members publish their musing on The Free Blogger Platform.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Francis Bellamy was a Christian Socialist. At one time he was a Baptist minister, but was forced to leave their clergy, because of his vocal socialistic viewpoints. The Pledge of Allegiance has been changed twice since his original work. The most notable change occurring in 1954, when the phrase "Under God", was inserted into it. It's odd that staunch conservatives would be such vehement supporters of a socialist.

See: Gene Healy, "What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?", Cato Institute, November 4, 2003.

Memory Hole Failure

When the Eagle Forum Alaska realised that their July 2006 questionnaire was being used as a weapon against their darling politician, Sarah Heath Palin, they simply deleted it from their blog. The original link now leads to a 404.

Silly fundies do not know about The Internet Archives. A mirror of the original post is available for viewing there.

Conservapedia to the Abortion Rescue

Conservapedia is a wiki started by a son of Phyllis Schlafly's, Andrew. Many people, when visiting the site have a hard time believing that it is not a parody. I can assure you, that it is not. Andrew Schlafly even has his own "home schooling" service for children of loons. Harsh assessment you say? Check out his fatuous defense of Palin's Historical Stupidity:

Conservapedia - Sarah Palin - Beliefs

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it. In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of George Washington on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2)[32]; "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9). George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers embraced reverence to God in the documents that established the United States.

This is a blatant dodge, intended to obfuscate. Check out this prior version:

Liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it. In fact, the phrase "under God" was taken from George Washington's biography, written by Parson Weems, although not taken from George Washington directly. George Washington was indeed a Founding Father. Moreover, all the Founding Fathers embraced reference to God in the documents that established the United States.

Notice how the reference to Parson Weems was omitted in the later version? Mason Locke Weems, aka "Parson Weems", was an Early American writer of biographical fables, most famous for his tale about Washington cutting down the cherry tree, and then confessing to his father because, "I cannot tell a lie".

The versioning history to Conservapedia's Sarah Palin article offers up amusing and informative tidbits for those able to traverse it. Note that user, Aschlafly is indeed, Andrew Schlafly.

In the present Conservapedia version, Footnote 32 links to a Weekly Standard article, which does not verify the assertions given for the citation:

"Under God" was one of those phrases that Weems liked to use, and it appeared frequently in his biography of Washington. When Washington delivered his Farewell Address, for example, Weems noted the effect on the public of the president's impending retirement: "To be thus bidden farewell by one to whom, in every time of danger, they had so long and fondly looked up, as under God, their surest and safest friend, could not but prove to them a grievous shock." On Washington's death, Weems wrote (as quoted by Barton): "Sons and daughters of Columbia, gather yourselves together around the bed of your expiring father--around the last bed of him to whom you and your children owe, under God, many of the best blessings of this life."

In other words, "Under God" is not actually attributed to George Washington, but instead is addenda inserted by a fable writer. Is it any wonder that these people feel persecuted? They're pretentious morons and liars who believe they know what is best for the rest of the world, facts notwithstanding.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o Eagle Forum
o Phyllis Schlafly
o Free Blogger Platform
o Pledge of Allegiance
o occurring in 1954
o What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?
o original link
o mirror of the original post
o Conservape dia
o Conservape dia - Sarah Palin - Beliefs
o this prior version
o Mason Locke Weems
o versioning history
o Aschlafly
o Weekly Standard article
o Also by postDigital

Display: Sort:
If thy blog post offend thee, pluck it out | 95 comments (71 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
-1: Try making a diary about Obama next time (2.00 / 4) (#12)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST

This was a decent troll, but you didn't even put in the effort to google for "george washington" "under god".

George Washington used "under god" like "god willing". MOAR.

You haven't read anything written by George, huh?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

i'll get back to you (none / 1) (#16)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST

After pulling all the volumes of "The Writings of George Washington" out of Google books with an honest assessment. In case you haven't tried yet. Google Books doesn't give up complete collections easily in a simple search. It usually requires browsing through a list of search records and then looking at each volume's title page to discern the volume number.

The definitive edition of Washington's works looks at first search to be:

Sparks, Jared. The life of George Washington. Boston: American Stationer's Company.

There are at least eight volumes.

Also, there's a collection with Worthington Chauncey Ford (Ed), and he's a recognised American historian. They'd be worth a look-see for any addended papers not in the earlier collection by Sparks.

I'm interested in authoritarian sources, not circle-jerked citations, especially anything that can be traced to one David Barton. He's proven himself to either be a slovenly researcher or a bald-faced liar.

I see several assertions that the phrase "Under God" was written into the daily orders for the reading of the Declaration of Independence, but I've not seen a full transcription of those orders yet.

Here's an amusing one I have located though:

I am glad to find by your last letter, that your family are tolerably well recovered from the indisposition they labored under. God grant you all health and happiness.

George Washington, letter to John Augustine Washington, 19 November, 1776.
Sparks, Jared. The life of George Washington. Boston: American Stationer's Company. Volume IV, p 185

I'll be in troll heaven if I ever find some arse cite this one as evidence.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, firsthand documents are in books (none / 0) (#19)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM EST

Not on the interwebs.

If you want to try something neat and historical, track down Buffalo Bill's pumpkin ale. It's a resurrection of George Washington's pumpkin beer recipe. Apparently it sucks, but then again he made it with what he had on hand.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

you need to dig into (none / 1) (#26)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST

Google Books. They have a huge number of authoritarian collections regarding early American History, copyright free and PDF downloadable. They have also responded to me twice, when I made queries about the lame search functionality, and once when I noted a silly OCR error that would cause a fairly common search to get fuzzed.

Google Books will become awesome someday, but is already really cool. When I finish pulling the Sparks volumes from search records, I'll post a complete link list for you to see.

Do you have a favorite early President? I may already have a volume listing for his papers. Washington, I haven't done yet.

[ Parent ]
Jefferson (none / 1) (#29)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST

He cut a bible to piece because it wasn't good enough.


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

choose one or more (none / 1) (#30)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM EST

  • The Writings of TJ - Memorial Edition
  • The Writings of TJ - Definitive Edition
  • The Jefferson Bible

[ Parent ]
all of the above (none / 0) (#32)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST

Linky me.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

2 of 3 (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:37:25 PM EST

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Library)
Andrew A. Lipscomb, Editor in Chief, Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor;
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, Washington D.C.

The title pages say "Library Edition, but I actually have a personal collection of the memorial edition, and they are the same. I'm guessing that the Memorial Edition was released as a special Library Edition also, and have inquired about this at the local library. The man at the research desk almost creamed his jeans, he was so happy about a weird bibliographical request, but last time I was there (about 2 weeks ago) hadn't resolved it yet.

Jefferson, Thomas, and Cyrus Adler. 1904. The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth, extracted textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English. Washington: Govt. print. off.

I'll get back with the Definitive Edition. I haven't pulled them from my Google books XML file listing, and that's another weakness with it. I'll have to yank it into an XML editor, then sort, and if the listings are titled differently, I'll still have to root around a bit.

[ Parent ]
Google books has potential (none / 0) (#39)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST

But I'm a bit pissed that individual volumes are missing or have strange copyright statuses. A good example of this are the foxfire books. The material in them is all republished from much older folk books, but google doesn't mention the other books or have any record of them. Meh. Still, thanks for the links.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

welcome (none / 0) (#43)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:59:45 PM EST

Searching Google Books is still a bit of art, and it's nice to pass on research that I've spent time on to somebody who will appreciate it.

Do you know about the Firefox extension, Zotero? It's still a bit of a bitch to use, and DO NOT forget to back-up the SQLite DB or you will be shit out of luck. It's also a good idea to keep exporting the researching data into HTML files, and then deleting them from the DB, to save on FireFox profile size overload.

If you have Zotero installed, you can click on an icon in the address bar for any Google Book, and it will automatically save the link it for you. You still need to use WorldCat or something similar to get a proper bibliographical cite though. Once you get the hang of Zotero, it can help immensely with some research. Time Mag, NY Times and LA Times are three news websites that are optimised for Zotero use, and Time Mag's archives are free now.

[ Parent ]
that was easier than expected (none / 0) (#40)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST

Jefferson, Thomas, and Paul Leicester Ford. The Works of Thomas Jefferson. 10 Volumes. 1892-1899. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

[ Parent ]
Jared Sparks (none / 0) (#60)
by postDigital on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM EST

Here's a first run at the Jared Sparks, "Writtings of George Washington" in Google Books. I've found 12 Volumes, but cannot say for sure that there are not more to the collection. Also, I've included notes for the various publish dates, because the 20 year variation is strongly indicative of more than one edition in these links. I do not know when or if I'll get around to refining these links though. PDF file download sizes are noted at the end of each listing.

Sparks, Jared. The life of George Washington. Boston: American Stationer's Company.

[ Parent ]
orthington Chauncey Ford (none / 0) (#64)
by postDigital on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST

This collection looks like a full listing, and seems to be better for citations than the Jared Sparks collection, because it isn't interspersed with commentary by the editor.

Washington, George. Ford, Worthington Chauncey (Ed). 1889-1892. The writings of George Washington. New York: G.P. Putnam' Sons.

[ Parent ]
Authoritarian sources? (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by rusty on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:42:43 PM EST

Like Pol Pot's "The Early Writings of George Washington" or Josef Stalin's "The True Washington Revealed"?


"I am glad to find by your last letter, that your family are tolerably well recovered from the indisposition under which they labored."

Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

i'm semantically challenged (none / 0) (#41)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST


[ Parent ]
that doesn't make sense in the pledge though (none / 1) (#20)
by Delirium on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST

Is it asserting that, God willing, we're one nation? Or that, God willing, we'll have liberty and justice for all?

[ Parent ]
The second one (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST

To paraphrase:
"One nation with liberty and justice for all if god lets us".

Maybe God doesn't want a nation with liberty and justice for all. Maybe God wants a nation of people who blow up coffee shops, etc. Maybe God is a creature from the horrible depths of the universe and George Washington must work to find the secret incantation written by his grandfathers grandfather to activate the seals and protect the very foundations of reality before madness overtakes them all.

(I should write fanfiction of George Washington set in the HP Lovecraft universe).

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

hmm (none / 1) (#24)
by Delirium on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST

While a plausible grammatical interpretation, I'm skeptical that's what the 1950s drafters intended it to mean, rather than meaning "one nation that is under God" or something roughly like "a Godly nation", in distinction to Godless Communism. I somehow doubt they inserted the phrase out of a sudden worry that its absence was blasphemous in a sense that nobody except pious Muslims had worried about since the 18th century.

[ Parent ]
Remember, it was written in 1892 (none / 0) (#27)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST

By a Christian, and a fairly pious one as he was a Baptist minister. Even if you don't want the George Washington National Treasure interpretation, "Under God" is still thematically correct given who wrote the original piece and it is historically correct also.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

no, it wasn't (none / 1) (#31)
by Delirium on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST

Had the 1892 version included the phrase "under God", that might be a reasonable interpretation. But the phrase we're talking about was written by Cold Warriors in the 1950s, whose purpose was to highlight the nation's religiosity as opposed to the USSR's state atheism. It really makes no sense to interpret them as being particularly worried, 60 years after the fact, that the pledge might have a theological issue with it that could be interpreted as blasphemous, and to "correct" that problem by using a long-obsolete phrase. Instead it's much more likely that they merely misused the phrase to mean something else.

Most of the modern-day pledge proponents similarly misuse it, talking about "one nation under God", which doesn't even make sense if the phrase is interpreted to mean "God willing" and attached to the following part.

[ Parent ]

OK.... (none / 0) (#34)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST

...considering the fact that Bellamy wrote it in the spirit of Lincoln and other earlier American politicians who also used the phrase "under God" in things like the Gettysburg Address, you must be smoking crack.

To quote Bellamy himself:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
    "The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
    "Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."

From Lincoln:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

"Under God" is nothing new.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

I'm impressed youi're citing a socialist (none / 0) (#37)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST

and former president of a State NEA chapter.

[ Parent ]
Your point would matter (none / 0) (#62)
by curien on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM EST

if Bellamy had written the version with "under God". But he didn't, so it doesn't really matter what style he tried to use.

If anything, it's noteworthy that he didn't use the phrase.

Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

text crit (3.00 / 7) (#36)
by rusty on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM EST

The problem with your premise is that it posits that "under God" is a sorta throwaway interjection, in the Washingtonian idiom. If so, it should be removed because it's linguistic junk. For comparison:

"...and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation hopefully, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That would be roughly the same as your formulation. "Hopefully" would be struck by any half-competent editor as superfluous and distracting. Its lack in the original text yields a much cleaner and more powerful phrasing.

Otherwise -- and given the lack of a comma between "one nation" and "under God" this is what I believe -- the intended meaning is "one nation subservient to the will of God." Which is not only wrong, but still craps up the text.

Nevertheless, I won't spend any time arguing about whether or not to remove it. I go straight for "what the fuck are American children doing reciting loyalty oaths to the State every morning?"

Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Joining the Hitler Youth (none / 1) (#42)
by GhostOfTiber on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST


[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Jawohl! (3.00 / 4) (#44)
by rusty on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST

Today, children, vee vill be studying ze sree branches uff ze Federal Government, und zhere relationship to ze degraded physiology uff ze Jew. First please stand for ze Oath Uff Fealty und Obeeedience. Schnell!

Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Damn, I wish I could give this comment (100) (none / 0) (#92)
by HackerCracker on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:30:09 AM EST

Nevertheless, I won't spend any time arguing about whether or not to remove it. I go straight for "what the fuck are American children doing reciting loyalty oaths to the State every morning?"
This is the question people should be asking themselves whenever this pointless issue comes up, but, for some reason, they never do.

[ Parent ]
Washington and "Under God" (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by postDigital on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST

Here are the citations for the term "under God", found in "The Writings of George Washington", Worhington Chauncey Ford (Ed). I used this collection, because the Jared Sparks collection has too much commentary interspersed with the records for solid citations.

I verified all of these citations through the University of Virginia Library's Scholars' lab (formerly E-Text Center), "The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799", Edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (1931-44), which seems to be the true authoritative source for Washington's Papers, and is completely online.

  • Volume I: O
  • Volume II - 1
    Found in Footnote 2, pp 412, 413. Not attributed to George Washington, but instead to "a member of the Assembly".
  • Volume III - 1
    Found on page 121
    Instructions to Colonel Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775
    1. You are immediately on their march from Cambridge to take the command of the detachment from the Continental army against Quebec, and use all possible expedition, as the winter season is now advancing, and the success of this enterprise, under God, depends wholly upon the spirit with which it is pushed, and the favorable dispositions of the Canadians and Indians.
  • Volume IV - 6
    1. pp 26-28
      To The President Of Congress New York, April 18, 1776
      from page 28:
      Agreeable to your request, I have communicated in General Orders to the Officers and Soldiers under my Command, the thanks of Congress for their good behaviour in the Service; and am happy in having such an oppertunity of doing justice to their Merit.

      They were indeed, at first, "a band of undisciplined Husbandmen," but it is (under God) to their bravery and attention to their duty, that I am indebted for that success which has procured me the only reward I wish to receive; the affection and esteem of my Countrymen.
    2. footnotes, page 201
      orderly book June 30, 1776
      Upon the Signal for the enemies approach, or upon any alarm, all fatigue parties are immediately to repair to their respective Corps, with their arms, ammunition and accoutrements ready for instant action; the working parties in no other instance are to be interrupted; the finishing of our Lines of defence and other works expeditiously, is a matter of so much consequence, that the General is persuaded from the known Zeal of the troops, that officers and men will stand in no need of arguments, to stimulate them upon common exertion upon the occasion, his anxiety for the Honor of the American Arms, and the noble cause we are engaged in, not a distrust in the officers care, induces him once more, and while time will allow it, to recommend a thorough Inspection in the men's arms and ammunition, to see that every Soldier is completed to Twenty-four Rounds, and has a good Flint, well fixed into the lock; in short to be well prepared for an engagement is, under God, (whose divine Aid it behoves us to supplicate) more than one half the battle.
    3. footnotes, page 202
      orderly book July 2, 1776
      The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army -- Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect -- We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions -- The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for LIBERTY on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.
    4. footnotes, page 226
      orderly book July 9, 1776
      The General hopes this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms: And that he is now in the service of a State, possessed of sufficient power to reward his merit, and advance him to the highest Honors of a free Country.
    5. pp 366-368
      Instruction to Major-General Putnam, August 25, 1776
      from page 367: I must therefore Sir, in earnest terms, desire you to call the Colonels and commanding Officers of Corps, (without loss of time) before you; and let them afterwards do the same by their respective Officers, and charge them, in express, and positive terms, to stop these irregularities, as they Value the good of the service, their own Honor, and the safety of the Army; which under God, depends wholly upon the good order and Government that is observed in it.
    6. pp 383-385
      To Colonel Fisher Gay, September 4, 1776
      from page 384: Your own Reputation, the safety of the Army, and the good of the cause depends, under God, upon our vigilance and readiness to oppose a Crafty and enterprising enemy, who are always upon the watch to take advantages.
  • Volumes V - XII - 0

If you note,Washington's uses of the phrase "Under God", occurred between September 14, 1775 and September 4, 1776. Less than one year, and were always a part of his official orders as General. Never as president or as a private citizen. This seems to give much more credence to Delirium's analysis than it does to those who would assert that it proves America was founded as a Christian Nation.

The Schlaflies still deserve to be swatted for being full of shit.

[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHA! (none / 1) (#14)
by gr3y on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM EST

(→Beliefs: removed liberal falsehood about origin of "under God"; reinserted the actual quotes from Washington)

(McCain is by far the better choice for president. Don't try to deny it.)

(→Beliefs: "Liberals say" it was written in 1892? When do conservatives say it was written?)

(→Beliefs: removed distortions; clarified)

Priceless. I had no idea such a thing existed.

You're right. It's almost as if someone deliberately staged the whole thing to enrage the left.

I am a disruptive technology.

you haven't experienced the real-tardedness (none / 1) (#18)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:58:34 PM EST

of Congresspedia until you check out their entry for Harry Potter, including the versioning. There is some serious troll bait in it.

Especially comical is their derisive comments about a Protestant's fundie's claims that it is all about witchcraft being so wrong, because the Vatican says it's A-OK.

They referenced some Vatican spokesperson who mentioned something about all kids having fantasies about fairies and elves. That spokesperson has found his/her dream job...

[ Parent ]
here's the direct cite from the current article (none / 0) (#28)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:46:48 PM EST

In 2003, a Vatican representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world."

Conservapedia - Harry Potter - Criticisms

Who amongst Kurons cannot see see the trolling opportunity in this?

[ Parent ]
Jesus Christ. (none / 0) (#48)
by gr3y on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:05:11 PM EST

It's as if they're incapable of thinking for themselves. Maybe conservapedia's contributors need ideological training wheels until they've been successfully programmed.

Or maybe they're so irretrievably stupid they believe all their mincing about will accomplish anything significant.

I used to work with a guy like that. He sent long, tepid emails to anyone who would listen with bullet points like: "It's okay not to swear!" We worked in a production environment. Welders and fitters are careless with language.

He was a slack-jawed father of three micro-cephalic children with male pattern baldness, high cholesterol, and a wife on anti-depressants who had tried to kill herself so many times that he demanded she call him once an hour, every hour he was at work so he would know she was still alive and that he didn't need to drive home to clean up her mess before his children got home from school. I am not making this up.

It was impossible for me to take him seriously, and all the ridiculous, trite little sayings made it impossible for me to sympathize with him. A guy like that should occasionally hate the world, just for a little while.

He'd be right at home on conservapedia.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

o shit (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by lostincali on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST

it's a feedback loop between two hyper-douchebags. the end must be near.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

those under-God uses also differ (3.00 / 5) (#17)
by Delirium on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST

The quoted 18th-century uses of "under God" are pretty clearly grammatically different from the one inserted into the Pledge. The Pledge version is asserting that the U.S. is a "nation under God", whereas the 18th-century ones mean roughly "God willing". It used to be customary to insert qualifiers like that to avoid being potentially blasphemous—for example, the Washington quotes are qualifying the assertion that success or safety or various other things depend "solely" on arms or courage or so on by adding in passing "well, of course they also depend on God's will, as goes without saying". This sort of usage is in the present day seen most prominently in the writing and speeches of pious Muslims, who retain the older custom that's fallen out of favor among Christians, and generally qualify any assertion that humans will bring about some situation with a "God willing", or "Insha'Allah".

-1, i can't stand this shit anymore. (3.00 / 1) (#45)
by lostincali on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."

McCain campaign <---------------------- $25 (none / 0) (#46)
by debillitatus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST

You use the phrase "Christian Socialist" like there was another kind of Christian in the 19th century.

Pretty much all Christians were socialists (q.v. Wm. Jennings Bryan) in the way the word was used in the US.  This is not surprising because 19th century socialism was essentially the logical conclusion of applying Christian philosophy to worldly affairs.

A lot of things have changed since then.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!

Don't Read Cato? (3.00 / 2) (#50)
by postDigital on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST

From the Cato article I posted a link to in my story:

...Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist."

Gene Healy, "What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?", Cato Institute, November 4, 2003.

Shirley, you are capable of better trolling than this!

BTW, the +1 was noted, and a cause for a positive personal reassessment.

[ Parent ]
My comment stands (none / 0) (#52)
by debillitatus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM EST

even though I attributed the words to you improperly.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

I'm under the impression that (none / 0) (#55)
by levesque on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:01:39 PM EST

"social" christianity wasn't then supported by Rome, and isn't now.

Liberation Theology

Liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. Two of the starting points of Liberation theology are, first, the question of the origin of sin; and secondly, the idea that Christians should make good use of the talents given by God, and that includes intelligence in a general sense, and science in particular. Therefore, these theologians use sociology and economics sciences to understand poverty, since they considered poverty was the source of sin.

[ Parent ]

In the 19th century, (none / 0) (#57)
by debillitatus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:31:00 PM EST

"Christianity" wasn't really thought to include Catholicism; it would not have been thought so by most Protestant practitioners.  They were thought of as very different things back then.

Note however that every successful major social reform in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries was promoted under the aegis of Christianity, e.g. Cross of Gold, Prohibition, civil rights, etc.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

that was more of an American thing it seems (none / 0) (#59)
by Delirium on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:19:49 AM EST

The European Protestants were pretty into the work-ethic and private enterprise thing, and rather implacably opposed to the socialists. Of course, they had a bigger Real Socialist movement of the atheist variety, what with Marx and Engels nearby.

[ Parent ]
the Baptists (none / 0) (#61)
by postDigital on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:09:36 AM EST

Were certainly opposed to Bellamy's socialistic ravenings. The defrocked him from their clergy for it.

I suspect that Debillitatus is using a much broader interpretation of "socialism" than either your or I subscribe to. Prohibition, and civil rights (along with that comes abolition), would not necessarily fall under socialism in my interpretation, and I doubt they would be considered so in Europe.

What is found in many of the New Christian sects that sprung up in America during the late 19th century is a strong sense of communalism, at least towards their own members. In some of these sects, but not all, there was also a strong tendency towards using the political process to advance their goals. The temperance movements, including prohibition. Other sects did and do not believe that it is their divine right to change the state, and instead work within their own organisation for missionary work.

Catholicism was viewed very dimly in America for a very long time. the reason for this is largely ignored presently, but should still be a proper concern. Early American Protestants believed that the civil government and religion should remain immiscible realms, that mixing religion and government only polluted both, resulting in an anti-libertarian state. They also believed that coercing religion upon a non-believer was antithetical to true Christian ideology. They feared Catholics, because the Papacy places itself above the civil power, not separate from it.

Here are just a few of the references found at the Founders' Constitution, published on the web by the University of Chicago Press/Liberty Fund. From the section: Amendment I (Religion):

Originally, it was not a "Freedom of Religion", but instead a "Toleration For Religion", which was not absolute, and a religion only had a right to be tolerated, as long as it was not oppositional to the civil power. It is the contemporary distortion of this, which has allowed Catholicism to be greater accepted in America, but the reason for it is frightening. Theocrats, of any denomination, stand in opposition to the civil power, and as such, do not have a Natural Right to Toleration. If this were the applied standard though, the Falwells, Robertsons, Warmonger Evangelicals, and Reconstructionists, would be standing on intolerable ground.

[ Parent ]
Allow me to introduce you to the term (none / 0) (#67)
by debillitatus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:46:02 AM EST


Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

I never knew you were afflicted with (none / 0) (#68)
by postDigital on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:42:41 AM EST

Acute Logic Deficit Disorder (ALDD).

In deference to the ADA: here is a reference for wikipeotillomaniacs.

[ Parent ]

What I'm saying is... (none / 0) (#69)
by debillitatus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST

just listing a bunch of crap you've not even read, or if read, not properly analyzed and synthesized, does not necessarily make your argument stronger.  Even if it looks impressive.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

I've read everyone of those posted links (none / 0) (#70)
by postDigital on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST

Many times over, and have cited most, if not all of them in the past. If you read them, you'll discover that there was indeed a great anti-Papist undercurrent running through many of the original Founders of this Nation, and that the reason for their negative attitude about Catholicism stemmed directly from the Pope's claim of sovereignty over the civil government. This does not run throughout the whole gamut of provided links though. Especially relevant is Roger Williams, who firmly believed that everyone, irrespective of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, had a Natural Right to do as they pleased. Roger Williams have a very good reason for holding strongly to this belief. He had faced severe persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for his Anabaptist beliefs from the Puritans. Yet even he drew a clear bright demarcation line between the civil and religious realms, stating that they should never be mixed.

Think honestly now, are not the assumptions you make about me, sight unseen, much more reflective about your own personal idiosyncrasies than mine?

[ Parent ]
To answer your question... (none / 0) (#71)
by debillitatus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST


Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

you and i (none / 0) (#75)
by postDigital on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:36:56 AM EST

have differing standards of research and analysis

[ Parent ]

Yeah, you're a crapflooder, (none / 0) (#80)
by debillitatus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:51:11 PM EST

and I'm not.

But all that aside, I'm glad you're around.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

go to the mirror (none / 0) (#82)
by postDigital on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:21:51 AM EST


[ Parent ]
and see a brilliant satirist? (none / 0) (#83)
by debillitatus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

He means adjust your monocle. (none / 0) (#93)
by grargrargrar on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:49:09 AM EST

It is a bit askew. And it needs to be polished again.

[ Parent ]
Hrm (none / 0) (#73)
by TDS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM EST

I'm not at all sure about that.

Depends how you see it of course. And how you define socialism and capitalism; are we talking about economic systems or intentions and mindsets? Their investment of money wasn't actually for personal financial gain and the preoccupation with the inherent nobility of labour and the hankering for uniform products is also a bit suspicious. Apart from the fact they were constructing modern capitalism, they'd have made very good communists.

And when we die, we will die with our hands unbound. This is why we fight.
[ Parent ]

-1 (none / 1) (#58)
by balsamic vinigga on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:28:05 AM EST

of all the idiotic things Palin has said, you fixate on this.. ? Unbelievable

Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
Pailin was only the vehicle (none / 0) (#63)
by postDigital on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST

Schlaflies extermination is the purpose.

[ Parent ]
Being bled by doctors was good enough, too. (none / 0) (#72)
by Pentashagon on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:20:19 AM EST

Isn't that what did Washington in?  Good old god-fearing, blood-letting quacks?

Almost any statement of the form "If it was good enough for X, blah blah blah" has weaknesses of this sort.  Even the constitution, great as it is, obviously is the result of a different era.  Soccer moms, spammers, deadbeat dads, and furries probably shouldn't be classed as full persons, kind of like slaves weren't back then.

author is stupid and vapid (none / 0) (#76)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST

i detest palin

however, if you are going defeat her, you defeat her on substantative long standing and multiply repeated policy positions. not little hiccups and gaffes we all make ourselves, like not knowing every bit historical trivia or misspeaking

obama just said "as a muslim" by mistake instead of "as a christian"

this kind of stuff just isn't even an issue, unless you are a spastic moron. we all misspeak a little now and then. we all don't know every bit of historical trivia. using these as points of criticism are hypocritical and pointless

the same sort of morons as you, dear author, but on the right instead, are analyzing obama's verbal hiccup to death as well and coming to all sorts of spastic and hysterical and retarded and fearful conclusions. its the partisan retard game, from the right or left: take tiny misquotes and blow them all out of proportion

hit them on the big longstanding multply stated policy points, or shut the fuck up, you just lower the iq in the room

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

why do you assume Palin is my target? (none / 0) (#78)
by postDigital on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST

It was not. The Schlaflies were.

Yet I'm wondering why you believe that a VP's lack of US History comprehension is an insignificant matter?

[ Parent ]
it IS an insignificant matter (none / 0) (#79)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST

because such a trivia gaffe is something we are all guilty of

if you exclude palin for consideration based on her lack of knowledge of the history of the phrase "under god", then you are excluding everyone who has ever lived and could ever live, because everyone wouldn't know the answer to a given stupid trivial pursuit question, of which their are thousands of the same level of importance of the exact history of that phrase's late insertion

if you were around when the founding fathers were alive, you would exclude alexander hamilton and benjamin franklin from serving a higher office because they didn't know the exact order of the printing of the pamphlets of voltaire. its retarded trivia

in 50 years, ask most people, and they will think we use "911" in case of emergency because of sept 11, 2001. of course the use of 911 preceded that date, but who fucking cares? same with the exact history of the usage of the phrase "under god". its nothing but trivia

instead exclude palin from higher office for her retarded policies and opinions

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You can say that again. (none / 0) (#81)
by TDS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:10:07 PM EST


And when we die, we will die with our hands unbound. This is why we fight.
[ Parent ]
??? que pasa (none / 0) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:16:50 AM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I more or less agree but... (none / 0) (#85)
by localman on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST

It's not just that she didn't know a bit of trivia -- I wouldn't expect everyone to.  But it is annoying that she preached as if she did know.  She tried to support her argument by feigning knowledge.  Weak.

Still, we've all probably done that too.  I agree with focussing on bigger issues.

[ Parent ]

i've spent my entire life doing that (none / 0) (#86)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST

making believe i know shit i don't really

and i have no shame about that

i think that everyone does that to some extent or another, whether at work, or in romance, or in politics

you couldn't get anywhere in life if you didn't

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

do you promote theocracy with half-assed lies? (none / 0) (#87)
by postDigital on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:00:57 AM EST

America wasn't founded as a Christian Nation. The concept itself is a flight of fantasy. There is, has never been, and will never be, a Christian gestalt. The schisms are too deep and wide to ever be breached.

The schlaflies need to be exterminated before the can infect the polity with their disease of fallacy.

[ Parent ]
i am an enemy of organized religion (none / 0) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST

just as much as you

the difference between you and i is i have a better understanding of the tactics required to actually defeat our enemy

you only seem useful for spastic remarks, and attacking one of your own, due to an inability to understand who you are talking to. because you don't fucking think before you open your ignorant mouth

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ask Rusty about the hit count (nt) (none / 0) (#89)
by postDigital on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:14:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 0) (#90)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Completely Disagree (none / 1) (#94)
by localman on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 01:25:38 AM EST

Nope, I don't feign knowledge.  I take pains to admit lack of knowledge so that I can learn things.

This topic has come up many times with the people I worked with, and we were able to identify which people in our office feigned knowledge.  It seemed pretty clear that people who feigned knowledge were generally less useful and a lot harder to work with.

So, you know, bite me ;)

[ Parent ]

Good Enough! (none / 0) (#77)
by invective on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST

Owning slaves was also good enough for the founding fathers. Can we get your amazingly insightful commentary on that, you stupid neocon whore? Kicking your worthlessly corrupt ass into the limelight was the nicest thing McCain has ever done for Obama.

I'd like to see Palin's bush. $ (2.00 / 2) (#91)
by HackerCracker on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26:06 AM EST

Under God (none / 0) (#95)
by anonimouse on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST

Strangely as a UKian, I was aware that "Under God" was introduced in the 1950's, but I still looked at the statement and wondered why you were picking at it until reminded.

Some trivia sinks into the back of your mind and doesn't come forward.

There are far more fundamental questions that could and should be directed at Palin. For example, under the "hockey mom and joe sixpack" way of speaking appears to be precious little policy or directly answered questions.

I suspect that Palin would be an effective VP, but personally, I would disagree on too many issues to ever vote for her.
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.

If thy blog post offend thee, pluck it out | 95 comments (71 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!