@Bobster – “I challenge the notion that the majority of the founders
of this nation were deists.”OK, present your
evidence…As far as examples of governments by “godless
men” I would offer Sweden, Japan, Canada, Norway, Holland, Australia,
Finland, New Zealand and to a lesser extent France, Germany, England,
Switzerland, Czeck Republic, South Korea, Israel, Austria, etc…While believers exist in all those countries, atheists/agnostics make up the
majority of the populace and their governments are entirely secular (just like
ours was designed to be).And just for further clarification, the
Nazis started as an uber-right wing Catholic movement in Bavaria, and even by
the end of the war virtually all the top leaders of Nazi Germany were still in
good standing with the Catholic Church (perhaps because they kept up on their
tithing). In fact only one Nazi leader was ever excommunicated from
the church and that was because he married a protestant… so the church
does have standards.
I challenge the notion that the majority of the founders of this nation were
deists. The reciting of the speech should have been how it was delivered, not
whatever draft you want pick of how it was written. We have to assume that
Lincoln said what he intended to say. Whether our presidents were religious or
irreligious are certainly things we can debate. One point beyond debate is what
types of governments godless men create and how people suffer because of them.
Two good examples from the 20th century include Nazi Germany and the Soviet
Union. Finally, why didn't President Obama's staffers protect him
from the ACA?
@rock on why should Obama and his staff or for that matter the rest of the
country live in constant fear of being left open to the never ending conspiracy
theory machine of the far right? No one but the far right cares.
No President would just take something and read it. He has lots of staff to
protect him. This man chose not to go to Gettysburg and knows his heart as we
have learned his heart, also.
Obama reading the Nicolay version (which, in all likelihood was the first
version before Lincoln added "under God") was yet another PR blunder by
this president's amatuer staff. I'm sure Obama just read whatever the
teleprompter said. His staff should have read this in advance and served the
president better by not reading this version which leaves him open to
controversy rather than being a contributor to a great anniversary.
@rockonNo spin needed.Straight from the Learn the
Address website:There are 5 versions of the Gettysburg Address.President Obama was asked to read the first, the Nicolay version.The Nicolay version does not include the phrase "Under God".Simple explanation.The Blaze has also updated their website
with this information.
How is this for spin:President Obama's recitation of
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is sparking hysteria from the right-wing media
who slammed the president for omitting the phrase "under God." But
ironically, in their hurry to attack the president, they omitted the fact that
Obama was reading the first draft of the speech -- a draft that did not include
"under God" -- at the request of filmmaker Ken Burns.To
commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, filmmaker Ken Burns
compiled footage of important national figures -- including Obama and all the
living former presidents -- reciting portions of the speech.On
November 19, right-wing radio host Chris Plante accused Obama of omitting the
phrase "under God" from his recitation of the Gettysburg Address. Other
conservative media outlets like the Drudge Report, The Daily Caller, and
National Review Online's The Corner promptly ran with the story. WMAL,
which hosts The Chris Plante Show, remarked about the news...Obama's recitation was not 'curious,' it was accurate -- Burns
requested that President Obama read the 'Nicolay Version' of the
Address, which was Lincoln's first draft of the Address and does not
contain the phrase "under God."http://mediamatters.org/blog
Today is the 150 year anniversary of Gettysburg address and guess who was
invited but decided to be a no-show?? Yes you guessed it - Barack. Perhaps it is
for the best since having any association with the GREAT Lincoln and the small
Barack is best left alone.
Ken Burns videod the living presidents reciting the entire Gettysburg Address
for a multi-person reading of the speech. In President Obama's recitation
he left out "Under God." Wonder why and how his apologists will spin
The trouble with history is that it all depends on where you are standing at the
time and the same applies to those who later try to interpret history.I appreciate Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address for what it says, but more so
for the few number of words to say it.
I'm with Tyler and Craig on this. There is evidence that Lincoln was at
least agnostic, and the language used in his speech does not mean that he was a
Christian in his beliefs. I've never really understood the belief
that people like "iron&clay" have where there is this deep distrust
of institutions of higher learning. I wonder what this kind of thinking stems
from? I have my opinions, but it's probably best I keep that to myself.
If you look for religious language in the speech, your imagination can easily
find it there, just as some do with the Constitution as well. Lincoln spoke of
God but never made a profession of Christian faith. He was turned off by
nitpicking sectarian squabbles over theology. As a politician, he was smart
enough to keep his deeper spiritual views to himself.
Maybe the remarks in this article state a purpose that is not on the
President's political agenda for our country. He wouldn't want to go
to the celebration today as that would spoil his processes for un-uniting our
country."Wills wrote that the Lincoln's expertly crafted
remarks became the accepted interpretation of the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution that instilled in people the idea that the United States
had to be united.""By accepting the Gettysburg Address, and
its concept of a single people dedicated to a proposition, we have been
changed," Wills wrote about its impact today. "Because of it, we live in
a different America."
Speech peppered with old timey 'biblical' language validates neither
the speech nor the source. As is pointed out in the article, the bible was used
to justify both sides of the slavery argument, and indeed can and is manipulated
to support just about any position the user intends.
@iron&clay – “academic 'historians' are paid to
deliberately re-write America's history with the intent to leave religion
and God out of America's founding and preservation.”And
your evidence for this is…?Consider the following two quotes
from Lincoln:"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my
profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of
Christian dogma.""My earlier views of the unsoundness of the
Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become
clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I
shall ever change them."It is likely that Lincoln had a faith of
some sort (Deism perhaps - like the Founders) but it certainly was not the kind
of faith those on the Religious Right would want to ascribe to him.Regarding rewriting history, I think the evidence is exactly opposite of your
assertion – that there are in fact paid “academics” (at
evangelical colleges like Patrick Henry, Liberty and Bob Jones) who are
attempting to rewrite our history by inserting God (and Christianity) throughout
our founding and early years.
Elmore and Mansfield both found what they thought was 'biblical
ignorance' when in reality these academic 'historians' are paid
to deliberately re-write America's history with the intent to leave
religion and God out of America's founding and preservation.What a pitiful tragedy that young people at Universities are going into major
debt for their own dumbing-down on the subject of America's religious