NationStates Jolt Archive

"Those who would control our minds must first control the past."

From George Orwell's novel 1984: "This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."

From an email I got today:

A message from an appalled observer:

Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. I got an unexpected history lesson. Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, veterans of "the greatest war," with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there.

On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked."

One elderly woman read the words aloud: "With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the enevitable triumph."

But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. "Wait a minute," she said, "they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with "so help us God."

Her husband said, "You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things llike that now."

"I know I'm right," she insisted. "I remember the speech." The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away.

Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, "Well, it has been over 50years. She's probably forgotten."

But she had not forgotten. She was right.

I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading --- "Flags of Our Fathers" by James Bradley. It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima. Right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt's speech to the nation ends in " . . so help us God."

The people who edited out that part of the speech could have fooled me. I was born after the war. But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts.

Now I ask: "Who gave them the right to change the words of history?"

People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning.

So what do you think? Is history being rewritten to fit the current rush to be "politically correct?"

"Those who would control our minds must first control the past."

So what do you think? Is history being rewritten to fit the current rush to be "politically correct?"

Every generation writes it's own understanding of history - it has to, or it won't understand it! In this case and context, omitting a rhetorical flourish from a monument is justified.

That's awful... PC has gone to far... The word God doesn't offend me nor does someone who prays ect... What offends me is when people try to convert me... People shouldn't try to change our history... What we all need to begin to do is respect everyones right to exist, peacefully... If people want to say Merry Christmas, so what let em... If you don't like it, ignore them....

Elgesh']Every generation writes it's own understanding of history - it has to, or it won't understand it! In this case and context, omitting a rhetorical flourish from a monument is justified.
Care to explain why?

only if it's state enforced, which most is largely voluntary due to public image concerns.

so, no.

People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning.

One word sir - balls. I call balls on that assertion. For your pleasure -

"Our founding fathers were devout Christians who based this nation on the Bible? Oh my. Well, lets get some opinions from the Founding Fathers themselves, eh? Arranging in alphabetical order. Why? Because I like it.

Lets start with John Adams, one of my favorites.
John Adams (1735-1826)
Second President of the United States (1797-1801)

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States 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 Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)


Alright, so Jonny is a bit hard-core. I'm sure friendly Mr. Franklin will be the very opitime of a good Christian!

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
American public official, writer, scientist, and printer who played a major part in the American Revolution

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Benjamin Franklin (attributed: source unknown)

Um...alright. Thomas Jefferson will prove the US is a Christian nation!

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The third President of the United States (1801-1809)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Richard Rush, 1813

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Damn it Tommy, shut up! You're not helping me prove to these nice people that Christianity was built into our nation by the Founding Fathers! In fact, you're being down-right hostile towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular!

I can only hope that James Madison, Father of our Constitution, can save us!
After all, it is that document that is the supreme law!

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.
-- James Madison, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Thats not a good start, James....

I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not, ministers of the gospel.
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
-- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
-- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
-- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W. Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

And smacking down a faith-based initiative! How dare you!


Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
-- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom. Also in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.

Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can ot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
-- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief


AAAAAHHHH!!! Washington, you are my only hope!

George Washington (1732-1799)
The first President of the United States (1789-1797)

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.
-- George Washington, to John Hancock, then president of Congress, expressing opposition to a congressional plan to appoint brigade chaplains in the Continental Army (1777), quoted from a letter to Cliff Walker from Doug Harper (2002) ††

Well. Screw me. I guess the Founding Fathers weren't religious nuts. How about that."

Based on the above evidence I call Strawman. Your assertion is that we are rewriting history by taking God out of stuff everywhere. That assumes that historically, the nation was founded with a heck of a lot of God in it. As that is false, you created a strawman.

That's awful... PC has gone to far... The word God doesn't offend me nor does someone who prays ect... What offends me is when people try to convert me... People shouldn't try to change our history... What we all need to begin to do is respect everyones right to exist, peacefully... If people want to say Merry Christmas, so what let em... If you don't like it, ignore them....
That would be nice, yes.

But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. "Wait a minute," she said, "they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with "so help us God."


somebody thinks that "so help us god" was the most important part? what the hell kind of bullshit is that?

oh, and then, of course, the whole thing is false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp).

That would be nice, yes.

But religion and social freedom can not co-exist sadly....

Elgesh']Every generation writes it's own understanding of history - it has to, or it won't understand it! In this case and context, omitting a rhetorical flourish from a monument is justified.

Why is it justified?

You've been duped. (http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/wwiigod.html)
The World War II memorial, recently opened in Washington, D.C., features a plaque that includes an excerpt of that speech - namely, the opening line and the second sentence of the 8th paragraph:

"PEARL HARBOR
DECEMBER 7, 1941, A DATE
WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY...
NO MATTER HOW LONG IT
MAY TAKE US TO OVERCOME
THIS PREMEDITATED INVASION,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN
THEIR RIGHTEOUS MIGHT,
WILL WIN THROUGH
TO ABSOLUTE VICTORY."

"So help us God," is not the final line of this speech. The line that the anonymous woman is overheard recalling as the closer is actually part of the last sentence of the 11th paragraph - the next-to-last paragraph of the speech.

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

"The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

"It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

"The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

"Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

"Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

"As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

"Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

"I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

"Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

"With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

The author of the first chain above admits that he or she was unfamiliar with the speech and obviously did nothing to learn more before sending the instantly popular bit of unfounded outrage. Break this chain.

Does it really matter? Is it really so offensive to remove the word God? Does it somehow diminish the monument that the word God has been removed? Are some Christians really so loathe to surrender any instance of their domination for the sake of inclusion?

oh, and then, of course, the whole thing is false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp).

so now who was being orwellian again?

Does it really matter? Is it really so offensive to remove the word God? Does it somehow diminish the monument that the word God has been removed? Are some Christians really so loathe to surrender any instance of their domination for the sake of inclusion?

I guess they think it's part of the Christian persecution in this country.... Even tho they're the majority and control the gubbermint...

You've been duped. (http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/wwiigod.html)

amazing what a mere 10 seconds of searching on the internet can disprove, isn't it?

That's awful... PC has gone to far... The word God doesn't offend me nor does someone who prays ect... What offends me is when people try to convert me... People shouldn't try to change our history... What we all need to begin to do is respect everyones right to exist, peacefully... If people want to say Merry Christmas, so what let em... If you don't like it, ignore them....

And if companies want to say Happy Holidays, what should we do? Boycott them?

Care to explain why?

Well, I sort of did, I thought; sorry, obviously didn't make it clear!

It's not denying history - it's trying to make a younger generation understand history.

New monument, needs its words. Various concepts of 'god' and his earthly believers divide rather than unite at the moment, so including the tailend of the sentence with ITS concept of god - so different from our own, talking about a uniting god-concept - would get in the way of transmitting this understanding of history to the younger generation.

Care to explain why?


Becuase its a little added flourish at the end of the speech, meant to add a tad more signifigance and punch to the statement.
It doesnt really add anything to the overall message of what was being said, or the point being made.

Its kind of like Walter Cronkites closing words at the end of every show "and thats the way it is."

We need to remember the news he gaves us, not his catchphrase.

In this modern world we live in, we arent truly a "nation under God" anymore.
We have Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, etc....

Its an attempt to appeal to all people in America, and not just the Christian majority.

amazing what a mere 10 seconds of searching on the internet can disprove, isn't it?
Ain't it though? You'd think after being burned so many times people would look some shit up now and then, especially things one gets in an e-mail...

And if companies want to say Happy Holidays, what should we do? Boycott them?

No, let em say whatever the hell they want... Happy Winter Solace for all I care....

This reminds me of the E-mail that went around after 9/11 stating that the Koran's 9-11 passage read something along the lines of " and the crescent shall fall to the Eagle" or some nonsense like that.

My Mother in Law fell for it until I showed her the real passage.

The conclusion is absurd, the logic fallacious, and the premise false.

But what else does one expect from people whose ideology is founded on the principle that atheists are oppressing Christians?

for those that refuse to click links that threaten to show them to be wrong, here is a picture of the excerpt of the 'date which will live in infamy' speech that is on the memorial:

http://67.19.222.106/politics/graphics/speech.jpg


and here is the complete text of the speech:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

The conclusion is absurd, the logic fallacious, and the premise false.

But what else does one expect from people whose ideology is founded on the principle that atheists are oppressing Christians?

Someone wanting to live free from Christian persecution has been turned around to the rest of us oppressing them... IDK how that happened... But I think Christians wont be happy till everyone is forced to pray, believe in their God, go to church and adhere to the bible....

I hope they realize it's very hard to oppress that large of a majority without some major government change.
By the way, since you fell for this,
HA HA!(Neson-Muntz-style)

Someone wanting to live free from Christian persecution has been turned around to the rest of us oppressing them... IDK how that happened... But I think Christians wont be happy till everyone is forced to pray, believe in their God, go to church and adhere to the bible....


and yet, they wonder why the rest of us think they completely suck.

I hope they realize it's very hard to oppress that large of a majority without some major government change.
By the way, since you fell for this,
HA HA!(Neson-Muntz-style)

Eh it happens LOL... But I still don't understand why they claim moral authority... And I should go back in the closet and live in fear of them wanting to stone me to death... Or abortion doctors afraid one these finatics are going to bomb their clinic.... The Right has gotten out of hand... I'm not talking about Republicans... The religious right....

and yet, they wonder why the rest of us think they completely suck.

One could only imagine how free we'd be if religion never existed... If everything didn't have some form of guilt attached to it... There is no way with religion around to be totally free... Only some degree of freedom is allowed....

Ain't it though? You'd think after being burned so many times people would look some shit up now and then, especially things one gets in an e-mail...

but that would be hazardous to the ol' conservative ideology, since they don't yet have the power to go around changing all the evidence to fit their delusions.

the aversion to looking things up isn't a flaw for them - it's a feature.

But religion and social freedom can not co-exist sadly....

What brought you to that conclusion?

No, let em say whatever the hell they want... Happy Winter Solace for all I care....

Right. The people making most of the fuss over the "War on Christmas" are Christians who feel that anyone not saying "Merry Christmas" are somehow oppressing them. I couldn't say for certain, but it seem that for some it is beyond the realm of possibility that certain companies or people would want to try and be inclusive all on their own.

What brought you to that conclusion?

Well, I've engaged a number of conservative christians.... Don't want abortion, don't want gay marriage, don't have the decriminalization of soft drugs, or lighter sentences for non-violent drug offenders.... They claim it goes against what their religion tells them... So as long as their the majority... Social freedom can not co-exist....

somebody thinks that "so help us god" was the most important part? what the hell kind of bullshit is that?

oh, and then, of course, the whole thing is false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp).
Ah HA! [ Note to self: be sure to check Snopes before posting stuff I get on the Internet. ] :)

Someone wanting to live free from Christian persecution has been turned around to the rest of us oppressing them... IDK how that happened... But I think Christians wont be happy till everyone is forced to pray, believe in their God, go to church and adhere to the bible....

It is a common rhetorical trick of the oppressor, always steadfastly insisting that he has the right to oppress other people, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a brutal tyrant intent upon crushing liberty.

Based on the above evidence I call Strawman. Your assertion is that we are rewriting history by taking God out of stuff everywhere. That assumes that historically, the nation was founded with a heck of a lot of God in it. As that is false, you created a strawman.
To whom are you referring, Sirrah? Certainly not I. I merely asked the question, not provided the answers. :p

yeah aint it funny how quickly people fall for these emails? I guess some people will automatically believe what they want to hear despite evidence to the contrary.

It is a common rhetorical trick of the oppressor, always steadfastly insisting that he has the right to oppress other people, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a brutal tyrant intent upon crushing liberty.

All i want to do in life is this: live peacefully, free, marry the one I love one day, raise a family, and not listen to how I'm damned for all eternity... Is that to much to ask???

All i want to do in life is this: live peacefully, free, marry the one I love one day, raise a family, and not listen to how I'm damned for all eternity... Is that to much to ask???


sinner :p

sinner :p

Damn right and proud of it tooo :cool:

Ain't it though? You'd think after being burned so many times people would look some shit up now and then, especially things one gets in an e-mail...
Trying to bait me again, eh Cannot? Tsk! Trickie no workie! :D

Trying to bait me again, eh Cannot? Tsk! Trickie no workie! :D
Sweet shit. It's hard to figure out if you're paranoid or just full of yourself.

Damn right and proud of it tooo :cool:

*high 5*

I bet those Xtians are feeling so moded right now. :eek:

The PC = Newspeak theory has actually been around for some time...

yeah aint it funny how quickly people fall for these emails? I guess some people will automatically believe what they want to hear despite evidence to the contrary.
Still trying to bait me, eh? Tsk! Sorry, young phoole, trickie no workie! :D

Sweet shit. It's hard to figure out if you're paranoid or just full of yourself.
And you should care ... why? Since you have such an aversion to me, one would imagine you would try to avoid me at every opportunity, not continue making snide remarks, derogatory innuendo and thinly veiled threats. Tsk!

Still trying to bait me, eh? Tsk! Sorry, young phoole, trickie no workie! :D


What the hell are you on about? If you think that's baiting then I fear your paranoia has gotten the better of you.

and calling me a fool, even if it's spelled 'phoole' is still flaming.

I'd also like to see links to all this other baiting I've been doing. I sure could use a good laugh at what I suspect will be completely off base links.

And you should care ... why? Since you have such an aversion to me, one would imagine you would try to avoid me at every opportunity, not continue making snide remarks, derogatory innuendo and thinly veiled threats. Tsk!
The last two are your domain. Please quote one instance where I threatened anyone with a 'thinly veiled threat.' How many things are you going to pull out of your ass to accuse me of? Lindburg baby? Hindenburg disaster? Tsk yourself, you big coward.

The only thing we could possibly try to bait you into doing is a little research before you start these threads. Not too much to ask, I think.

'Such an aversion to you'...christ, get over yourself. I comment on what you say. If you don't want your ideas challenged write them in journal and don't show them to people.

And enough with the baseless accusations, I would like to think they are beneath you...call me an optimist.

Well, I've engaged a number of conservative christians.... Don't want abortion, don't want gay marriage, don't have the decriminalization of soft drugs, or lighter sentences for non-violent drug offenders.... They claim it goes against what their religion tells them... So as long as their the majority... Social freedom can not co-exist....

...Nope, still don't see how religion and social freedom cannot co-exist.

...perhaps they forgot it?

PC didn't exist in the 50's, you were still murdering black people to your heart's content. So the idea it was taken out for that reason is bullshit anyway.

Another bullshit is that your suffering from ridiculous PC today... you're not, you've successfully retained your ghettoes from the 60's.

("You" being the right wing Christian Americans that forever rule the US and pollute this forum with bullshit)

I think you guys and gals are missing the point. History is getting rewritten. It always has been rewritten. At first, indians always were savages. At least that's what some people wrote in their imainary history books. I bet it even got written down somewhere. Things get rewritten. Is the bible really all about oppression? If there was a holy book for atheism(basicly a book of rules and stories that atheists must read) and it got rewritten so that it preaches world domination and terrorism, would atheism be a tool of oppression? Would Islam? Afterall, there are newer, altered versions that preach hatred and terrorism. Is Islam evil as many liberals portrayed Christianity? You shouldn't change history. If a time was confusing, let it confuse. Don't alter it so some dumbass flunky can get into mensa. I bet future history books will greatly exagerate and lie about what's happening right now in human history. It's a concept that should be stopped. Do you guys want Bush to be portrayed as god(or the twenty-first century's Hitler)? Do you want people to not know what 9-11 was or for them to think that it was a nuclear strike?

I think you guys and gals are missing the point. History is getting rewritten. It always has been rewritten. At first, indians always were savages. At least that's what some people wrote in their imainary history books. I bet it even got written down somewhere. Things get rewritten. Is the bible really all about oppression? If there was a holy book for atheism(basicly a book of rules and stories that atheists must read) and it got rewritten so that it preaches world domination and terrorism, would atheism be a tool of oppression? Would Islam? Afterall, there are newer, altered versions that preach hatred and terrorism. Is Islam evil as many liberals portrayed Christianity? You shouldn't change history. If a time was confusing, let it confuse. Don't alter it so some dumbass flunky can get into mensa. I bet future history books will greatly exagerate and lie about what's happening right now in human history. It's a concept that should be stopped. Do you guys want Bush to be portrayed as god(or the twenty-first century's Hitler)? Do you want people to not know what 9-11 was or for them to think that it was a nuclear strike?


I don't think you understand what goes in on writing history. You're thinking it changes the _facts_, as it were, but that's not the purpose of each generation rewriting history; it's about changing the interpretation of these facts as we gain a better perspective of them, putting them in a better social, political, and economic context relating to what happened before and after event xyz. _That's_ rewriting history, and it, rightly, happens all the time. You're talking about something quite different, for which I'd like to see some evidence.

on the subject of Political Correctness - why is everyone up in arms about a language trend? It's not like political correctness is being written into law is it?

Isn't it really just a trend of people choosing their words more carefully so as to try not to offend others in some way? Like my sister is mentally handicapped, do you really want to call her a retard instead? I don't think you would like the way I respond to that. Isn't PC just a way to be nicer to each other? Are the people who are vehemently against being PC just people who wish to be jerks to others without the social stigma associated with it?

Really, I am just asking because I don't know what the big deal about PC is.

on the subject of Political Correctness - why is everyone up in arms about a language trend? It's not like political correctness is being written into law is it?

Isn't it really just a trend of people choosing their words more carefully so as to try not to offend others in some way? Like my sister is mentally handicapped, do you really want to call her a retard instead? I don't think you would like the way I respond to that. Isn't PC just a way to be nicer to each other? Are the people who are vehemently against being PC just people who wish to be jerks to others without the social stigma associated with it?

Really, I am just asking because I don't know what the big deal about PC is.
I feel the same, my sister is autistic, and it does make people feel better in some cases.
But I still don't think a missing bit of speech on a 50 year old monument has anything to do with PC.

...Nope, still don't see how religion and social freedom cannot co-exist.
Umm well if you get raped you should have the privelage of not having to see the face of your attacker in your baby's face.
And what the hell is wrong with gays? If they are born gay, they should not have to pretend to be different to who they really are just because Christians always have the upper hand in your country.

Religion should not form the basis of the social law, it is a spiritual idea that you may choose to have, but don't try to impose it on other people and tell them their beliefs are wrong because their beliefs in the philosophical sense are just as important/valid as devout religious views.

But as I said, in a social sense of governing, religion is bullshit.

The first few times I saw Eut post things that ended up being false, I figured them flukes. I believe that Eut is emotional and paranoid, but intelligent at the least.

However, wtf mate? I cannot count the times you've posted things like these, only to have them be false. Partially because I can't remember the details of them all, but still...