As Texas Dumbs Down, So Does the USA

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Curses! Foiled again.

Getusedtoitmax.

Or . . . one could take into account the native people living there as occupying the place before the official 'founding' by Europeans. But then I guess it ultimately comes down to dueling tour guides.

But as it turns out, we're both wrong. The correct answer is Ticul in the Mexican Yucatan, continuously occupied by the Maya since at least the 7th century b.c. So there. :tongue:

Well, when you posted this:

By the way, the oldest continuously occupied city in North America is Santa Fe, founded by the Spanish in 1608, 12 years before the landing at Plymouth Rock, in what was then Spanish territory.

... you seemed to established the criterion of continuous European settlement.

Edit: In spite of your cleverly quickly played edit, you're now wronger. :tongue: :tongue:

Curses, foiled again.

 

[maxcok]

Getusedtoitmax.

Geshundheit!

Well, when you posted this:

By the way, the oldest continuously occupied city in North America is Santa Fe, founded by the Spanish in 1608, 12 years before the landing at Plymouth Rock, in what was then Spanish territory.

... you seemed to established the criterion of continuous European settlement.

Well, despite what may seem . . . I see where you conveniently edited out the next line:

Of course it was a pueblo occupied by Indian people long before that.

Sneaky, I'd say. Nevertheless, I think we are now down to hair splitting, and as mine is rather wavy, the exercise is both tricky and tiresome.

Curses, foiled again.

:10:


Edit: My purpose in posting the founding date of Santa Fe was to enlighten certain posters who seem to think the Pilgrims started it all, and are rather dismissive of the contributions of Hispanic culture (and others) in the history of America. Spanish culture is hard to overlook when one is living in the West, and I would think in Texas for sure. You were not out of line to correct me, and coincidentally bolster the point I was trying to make, so gracias Senor.

 

[vince]

in terms of secular government - I'm not religious, but the President still places his hand on the bible at inauguration - just as the Founding Fathers dictated.

They did no such thing. The use of the Bible is customary, but it is not mandated in the Constitution. The POTUS could place his hand on the Yellow Pages and the oath would still be legit. That might be more appropriate actually... The oath itself does not even mention God.

To me, the Board of Education's insistence diminishing the "leftist" notion that there's a constitutional separation between church and state, or that they teach "both sides" of evolution, are even more insidious than leaving out the true history of native peoples and immigrant minorities. That's been going on forever. This creationism BS is an outright distortion of science, not merely a lie by omission.

 

[deleted15807]

An excellent read The Republican War on Science

 

[maxcok]

They did no such thing. The use of the Bible is customary, but it is not mandated in the Constitution. The POTUS could place his hand on the Yellow Pages and the oath would still be legit. That might be more appropriate actually... The oath itself does not even mention God.

Good going, Vince. You're Canadian if I'm not mistaken, right?

Educating Star on what is and is not Constitutionally mandated?

I am relishing this moment.

 

[B_starinvestor]

They did no such thing. The use of the Bible is customary, but it is not mandated in the Constitution. The POTUS could place his hand on the Yellow Pages and the oath would still be legit. That might be more appropriate actually... The oath itself does not even mention God.

To me, the Board of Education's insistence diminishing the "leftist" notion that there's a constitutional separation between church and state, or that they teach "both sides" of evolution, are even more insidious than leaving out the true history of native peoples and immigrant minorities. That's been going on forever. This creationism BS is an outright distortion of science, not merely a lie by omission.

Not that I question your assertion - but i looked this up and you are correct. While there are references to God in the Constitution, I can't find anything that suggests a requirement of using a bible in taking oath of office.

 

[finsuptx]

None of the Founding Fathers were "Christians". As Freemasons, they most often spoke of "The Great Architect of the Universe". They were deists. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were the most vehement against organized religion interfering or becoming tangled in government affairs and infringing on the rights of the people. I wonder if that has anything to do with the Board's efforts to downplay Jefferson in its new curriculum?

 

[maxcok]

The religious, spiritual, humanist beliefs, practices and affiliations of the so-called founding fathers cannot be understood in simplistic contemporary terms. Many were affiliated with a religious denomination, mainly Protestant, but not necessarily devout 'Christians', in the commonly understood sense. Those denominations have evolved over time as well, so the churches of the time cannot be assumed to be such as they are today.

Even among those associated with a particular Christian denomination , many rejected the divinity of Christ, 'miracles', an activist God, and literal acceptance of biblical text, tending instead to freethinking 'Deism'. If there is a predominant theme, these men were greatly influenced by the humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment above all, and many were opposed to organized religion in any form. There is lots of good information here for those who are interested:

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Founding Fathers Religion Debate and Poll

The Founding Fathers Speak Out

Religion and the Founding Fathers

 

[Zeuhl34]

Not that I question your assertion - but i looked this up and you are correct. While there are references to God in the Constitution, I can't find anything that suggests a requirement of using a bible in taking oath of office.

Where exactly are those references to God? With my friend the internet, I pulled up the text of the US Constitution, and I hit Ctrl+F.

• "God," "Holy,""Worship," "Christ," "Spirit," "Sacred," "Bible," "Scripture," and "Creator" all yielded no hits.
• "Lord" sent me to the phrase "Year of our Lord" which is simply a fancy way of saying A.D.
• "Religion" just sent me to the first amendment.
• "His" and "He" (in reference to God) came up with nothing.

The only references to religion at all are the "Year of our Lord" and the First Amendment, which guarantees governmental neutrality on the issue of religion.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Rather amazing what many people merely assume is in the Constitution, eh?

 

[Calboner]

Not that I question your assertion - but i looked this up and you are correct. While there are references to God in the Constitution, I can't find anything that suggests a requirement of using a bible in taking oath of office.

Where exactly are those references to God? With my friend the internet, I pulled up the text of the US Constitution, and I hit Ctrl+F.

• "God," "Holy,""Worship," "Christ," "Spirit," "Sacred," "Bible," "Scripture," and "Creator" all yielded no hits.
• "Lord" sent me to the phrase "Year of our Lord" which is simply a fancy way of saying A.D.
• "Religion" just sent me to the first amendment.
• "His" and "He" (in reference to God) came up with nothing.

The only references to religion at all are the "Year of our Lord" and the First Amendment, which guarantees governmental neutrality on the issue of religion.

You're not looking closely enough. The preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," contains exactly 52 words. Fifty-two is twice 26, which is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters that spell the name of God. Twice two is four. Thus God is mentioned four times in the preamble to the Constitution. See?

 

[finsuptx]

You're not looking closely enough. The preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," contains exactly 52 words. Fifty-two is twice 26, which is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters that spell the name of God. Twice two is four. Thus God is mentioned four times in the preamble to the Constitution. See?

LOFL

 

[vince]

Good going, Vince. You're Canadian if I'm not mistaken, right?

Educating Star on what is and is not Constitutionally mandated?

I am relishing this moment.

Yup. I am Canadian.

But to be fair, Star has no chance against a winner of the Daughters of the American Revolution Gold Medal for Excellence in U.S. History. :wink:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You're not looking closely enough. The preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," contains exactly 52 words. Fifty-two is twice 26, which is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters that spell the name of God. Twice two is four. Thus God is mentioned four times in the preamble to the Constitution. See?

If this could fit in a sig, I'd be so tempted to list it... providing that I give the man who thought of it proper credit, of course. Priceless!!! :biggrin1:

 

[Calboner]

If this could fit in a sig, I'd be so tempted to list it... providing that I give the man who thought of it proper credit, of course. Priceless!!! :biggrin1:

I appreciate the thought, but I would rather that you not do such a thing, as the words could suffer the same fate as my previous attempt at satire ("17" x 10-3/4", photo verified").

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

:10:
Well, despite what may seem . . . I see where you conveniently edited out the next line: "Of course it was a pueblo occupied by Indian people long before that."
Sneaky, I'd say.

No, it's not sneaky, because you worked in the date 1608 that only had relevance because it is associated with Spanish establishment of Sante Fe.
The reference to earlier aboriginal settlement is not uninteresting but not strictly relevant, either.
However ...

Edit: My purpose in posting the founding date of Santa Fe was to enlighten certain posters who seem to think the Pilgrims started it all, and are rather dismissive of the contributions of Hispanic culture (and others) in the history of America. Spanish culture is hard to overlook when one is living in the West, and I would think in Texas for sure. You were not out of line to correct me, and coincidentally bolster the point I was trying to make, so gracias Senor.

Indeed, your point is bolstered.
And it's a good one, so rubi's happy.:dance:

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

You could expound on the influence of the Iroquois on our system of government if you are so inclined. I think it would be enlightening for all.

In truth MLB is a better advocate for alternate interpretations of history than I. Lately I have been reading about how the history of non-European man is revealed through dissecting layers of biomatter, and how our Native Americans ancestors managed our bio-preserve so much better than we have. It's fascinating stuff, but I digress...

From what I have read, this Don McLeroy (a dentist by trade, and btw there is an excellent ed in yesterday's NY Times on this) wants America's history to only that of a Christian nation, which is why so many of us refer back to Locke and Jefferson, since they established, and codified the separation of Church and State. It's ironic that those in charge of disseminating historical thought, know so little of it.

Furthermore, even if we accept this premise, Christianity is such a divided religion, which version shall we use? Baptist, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Northern Baptist, etc. The 100 years war was fought over over this, yet it's still a fraught contention: what version of morality, and world view shall we teach our kids. We continually revisit it (Scopes Monkey Trial anyone ?), but monarchies have fallen over less...

As to the Iroquois Resolution, I blathered on about in another post sometime back, but the quick summary is this:

The Iroquois League, or 5 Nations was a decentralized diplomatic and political entity entered into by the tribes of the North East: Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Onandaga, and Oneida in the mid-1400's. Their history dates back to about 1000 AD, and they eventually extended their reach into what is now Virginia, and the Carolinas. Their political body was the Great Council, and each tribe had a fixed number of chiefs/sachem, 50 in toto. It was a consensus based system, and women had equal, if not greater rights, as they could veto any treaty of war, vote in, or demote a chief/sachem, as well hold property.

It's not without controversy, even though it passed, but here's the text of the resolution:
Congressional Record -- Senate

Here's the actual Iroquois Constitution:
Iroquois Constitution

BTW Calboner loved the twisted logic.

 

[Calboner]

BTW Calboner loved the twisted logic.

I did? Ah, you mean "Calboner, loved the twisted logic."

It is actually a parody of gematria, a form of bullshit held in high regard by many Orthodox Jews and other superstitious people. Before writing it, I looked up the value of the tetragrammaton (YHWH), which is in fact 26, and then started counting words from the beginning of the text of the Constitution. I got to 26 well before the end of the first sentence, but I discovered as I approached the end of it that the number of words in the whole sentence was, by luck, exactly twice that.

 

[maxcok]

BTW Calboner loved the twisted logic.

Well, he would.
Edit: See what I mean? Damn you're fast!


Thanks for the summary and the links.
I don't know nearly as much about this as I should.
Think I have some studyin to do.



p.s. Can you link up your post where you 'blathered on'?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I did? Ah, you mean "Calboner, loved the twisted logic."

It is actually a parody of gematria, a form of bullshit held in high regard by many Orthodox Jews and other superstitious people. Before writing it, I looked up the value of the tetragrammaton (YHWH), which is in fact 26, and then started counting words from the beginning of the text of the Constitution. I got to 26 well before the end of the first sentence, but I discovered as I approached the end of it that the number of words in the whole sentence was, by luck, exactly twice that.

Yeah, I shudda put a dash in there.

I had no idea this twisted superstitiousness had a name, or a tradition. Very cool. You could get into all kinds a trouble with this. It's like it's own form of OCD.