I think both the Pledge and footie culture are pretty dubious manifestations of jingoism, but they're not symmetrical comparisons. As far as I know, no one in the UK is trying to make loyalty to particular teams into a mandatory activity.
OTOH, in fairness to the Americans, failure to pledge allegiance, while it can lead to legal difficulties for the recusant, doesn't usually end with anyone getting their heads smashed in with a Guiness bottle and their car torched. At least not on peacetime.
I refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. The under God phrase was added in the 50s because it was believed no self respecting communist would say it. And our nation is not giving equal justice to all.
The under God phrase was added in the 50s because it was believed no self respecting communist would say it.
I've heard that explanation before, but can it be verified? It seems odd that people would think that underground Communists would refuse to say it, since Communists are hardcore materialists who aren't gonna view the simple recital of the words as causing any harm(*), and would, I think, just go along with the ritual to avoid blowing their cover.
(*) As opposed to Jehovahs Witnesses, who think that merely saying the words will get them physically annihilated by Jehovah forever.
Interestingly, as an aside, I've learned today that the Sephardic Jews in Portugal concocted a non-pork sausage that tasted like pork in order to sidestep the Inquisition's apparently 'fool-proof' way to test whether they'd truly converted or not.
On the US flag malarkey, it's always struck me as odd the apparent devotion many Americans have to this sort of thing when separation of church and state is built into the Constitution.
I've seen old 1950s US movies where Lincoln or Washington or some other Founding Father aren't shown directly as if they are almost too sacred to appear on screen with ethereal and 'religious' sounding music in the background like as if they're one of the Disciples or St Francis of Assissi or something.
Or where words from the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence appear onscreen to the backing of angelic choirs going, 'Ahh...ahh...ahhh' as if they are the Ten Commandments.
There are probably some schmaltzy British equivalents from the same era. Queen Elizabeth I sticking it to those nasty Spanish Papists or Nelson thrashing the French.
All guff.
I can certainly see parallels with British football insignia and hero worship but it's not quite comparing like with like.
On the US flag malarkey, it's always struck me as odd the apparent devotion many Americans have to this sort of thing when separation of church and state is built into the Constitution.
The Establishment Clause is under direct assault here in the US, and is in no way safe.
Gramps49 wrote: »
The under God phrase was added in the 50s because it was believed no self respecting communist would say it.
I've heard that explanation before, but can it be verified? It seems odd that people would think that underground Communists would refuse to say it, since Communists are hardcore materialists who aren't gonna view the simple recital of the words as causing any harm(*), and would, I think, just go along with the ritual to avoid blowing their cover.
To which Caissa adds: Wikipaedia citing two sources gives a slightly different take on the question.
W: During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance.[40][41]
OTOH, in fairness to the Americans, failure to pledge allegiance, while it can lead to legal difficulties for the recusant, . . .
It’s very well established (for now, who knows anymore with the current SCOTUS) that no one can be legally required to say the pledge or face legal consequences for not saying it.
On the US flag malarkey, it's always struck me as odd the apparent devotion many Americans have to this sort of thing when separation of church and state is built into the Constitution.
I wouldn’t think separation of church and state has anything to do with the flag, at least not generally speaking. I’ve long thought that in American culture, the flag fills the role historically (and theoretically) filled by the monarch in the UK—a symbolic focus of national unity that is (again theoretically) above partisan politics.
I've seen old 1950s US movies where Lincoln or Washington or some other Founding Father aren't shown directly as if they are almost too sacred to appear on screen with ethereal and 'religious' sounding music in the background like as if they're one of the Disciples or St Francis of Assissi or something.
At least as far as Lincoln goes, I think you might he reading a bit too much into the portrayals in those films.
There were numerous visual portrayals of Lincoln in movies, including ones where he's the main character, not to mention several iconic scenes in Birth Of A Nation(which is infamously anti-Reconstruction but pro-Union as far as the war is concerned) where he appears. Plus, that talking robot at Disneyland, and that's not even getting into the mass-circulated 5 dollar bill.
So, I'd suggest that maybe those movies you're thinking of were obscuring his image for an atmospheric effect within their specific contexts, rather than being indicative of a quasi-religious taboo.
Not sure about Washington, but he did turn up on an episode of Bewitched in the 60s or 70s, when Samantha conjured him up for some reason.
The Pledge of Allegiance has an interesting history! It was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy. Originally published in The Youth’s Companion on September 8, 1892, Bellamy hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. The original version read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” In 1923, the words “the Flag of the United States of America” were added, resulting in: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
And the original salute was right arm held straight out toward the flag. But that was dropped in the 40s, I think, because it resembled the Nazi salute. Now it is right hand over heart.
But let's just revert to the old Roman pledge to Ceasar and throw a pinch of salt on the Trump altar.
It’s very well established (for now, who knows anymore with the current SCOTUS) that no one can be legally required to say the pledge or face legal consequences for not saying
Right. I remember during the 1988 election, when Bush attacked Dukakis for veto-ing a mandatory pledge law, and Dukakis replied by saying he was simply obeying a SCOTUS decision, Bush rejoindered that some other governor had allowed such a law to go forward regardless of the court ruling. So I think I might have had the impression that it was a bit of a gray area in terms of what states try to do, like eg. trying to sneak in religious observance via "moments of silence".
It’s very well established (for now, who knows anymore with the current SCOTUS) that no one can be legally required to say the pledge or face legal consequences for not saying
Right. I remember during the 1988 election, when Bush attacked Dukakis for veto-ing a mandatory pledge law, and Dukakis replied by saying he was simply obeying a SCOTUS decision, Bush rejoindered that some other governor had allowed such a law to go forward regardless of the court ruling.
Actually, what Dukakis said was that he’d asked the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an advisory opinion on the bill, which would have subjected teachers to fines for refusing to lead the pledge, and that court said that under SCOTUS precedent the bill was unconstitutional. Dukakis also said that anyone who’d sign a clearly unconstitutional bill wasn’t qualified to be president. Bush said the bill hadn’t actually been legally tested (in an adversarial proceeding), and so he’d have signed the bill and then let the courts decide.
SCOTUS ruled that, under the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment, school children could not be compelled to say the pledge or punished for not saying it in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
It’s very well established (for now, who knows anymore with the current SCOTUS) that no one can be legally required to say the pledge or face legal consequences for not saying
Right. I remember during the 1988 election, when Bush attacked Dukakis for veto-ing a mandatory pledge law, and Dukakis replied by saying he was simply obeying a SCOTUS decision, Bush rejoindered that some other governor had allowed such a law to go forward regardless of the court ruling.
Actually, what Dukakis said was that he’d asked the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an advisory opinion on the bill, which would have subjected teachers to fines for refusing to lead the pledge, and that court said that under SCOTUS precedent the bill was unconstitutional. Dukakis also said that anyone who’d sign a clearly unconstitutional bill wasn’t qualified to be president. Bush said the bill hadn’t actually been legally tested (in an adversarial proceeding), and so he’d have signed the bill and then let the courts decide.
SCOTUS ruled that, under the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment, school children could not be compelled to say the pledge or punished for not saying it in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
I've sometimes wondered what woulda happened if Dukakis had explicitly mentioned that the main cases against the Pledge had been launched by Jehovahs Witnesses. Would the average voter have thought: "Ah, so it's not all just dirty commie hippies who object, some Christians dislike it as well"? Or would it be "Eh, just one more reason to hate those goddam freaks who wake me up every morning with their weirdo magazines"?
Obviously, the first reaction would work to Dukakis' benefit, the latter to Bush's.
Yeah, there’s a whole thing among a certain crowd of treating Trump as a modern Cyrus, used by God even if not an actual believer himself. (See links to coins above.)
Well, those coins were apparently minted by the Israelis, and as such there is a certain internal logic to the message.
If I understand what I've been reading about Cyrus, he was a powerful, gentile leader who did something or other to recognize Jerusalem as a Jewish City. Adjusting for what I'm sure are very different political circumstances, that aptly describes Trump as well.
So it is at least a better comparison than suggesting that Trump has the same respect for and knowledge of Christianity that King David had of Judaism. YMMV, and you can have the last word.
Yes, those coins were, but his followers were comparing Trump to Cyrus before that, as a non-Christian who would nonetheless make the US into something that they’d like.
Seems to me the actual way the thing is bound is bad but not really that bad. As far as I understand the text hasn't been changed and the binding just includes nationalist images and notable phrases from the constitution.
It reminds me of some British stuff I've seen from the Victorian era. I don't remember if it was actually a bible, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the mix of religion and pious nationalist imagery.
It seems to me that everyone would ignore this as nonsense if it wasn't being pushed by Trump. To me that is what makes this bad.
If the law has acknowledged that pledging yourself to a flag, or, for that matter to something that symbolises the state, is a religious act and therefore cannot be made compulsory under the constitutional principle that there shall be no established religion, I'd interpret that as legal classification of the flag as an idol and the pledge therefore idolatry. In which case why are any Christians, Jews or Moslems still doing it or encouraging children in their care to do so?
I have just dug out the pocket New Testament issued to my late grandfather when he joined the RAF in 1940.
It has the crest of George VI stamped on the front cover, and the first page reads:
Message from H.M. The King
To all serving in my forces by sea, or land, or in the air, and indeed, to all my people engaged in the defence of the Realm, I commend the reading of this book. For centuries the Bible has been a wholesome and strengthening influence in our national life, and it behoves us in these momentous days to turn with renewed faith to the Divine source of comfort and inspiration. 15th September 1939
It seems to me that the King's message is focussed on recommending reading the Bible, rather than jingoism. It does bundle in "defence of the Realm" and "reading the Bible" though.
Apart from the King's message, it includes a pronunciation guide, but no maps, illustrations etc.
Not really in the same category but when I was young, all commercial hotels had copies of the Gideon Bible in bedside drawers, "to win salesmen for Christ" and help travelling salesmen avoid the temptations of bars, gambling, escort services or loneliness with a selection of recommended verses placed at the front of the pocket Testament.
Someone upthread a long time ago said they doubted any Shipmates would have a Coronation Bible. Well I do - I bought it as a souvenir of the event. The Bible itself is small and red with the CR cypher on it - to be frank it's still got the plastic wrap on as I'm not using it as a reading Bible so I'm not sure if it has a photo of the coronation chair in. It's clearly designed to be a souvenir rather than something you'd actually read much because it's too small to read comfortably at home, and too large to carry around. The Bible I actually read is a NRSV paperback.
If the law has acknowledged that pledging yourself to a flag, or, for that matter to something that symbolises the state, is a religious act and therefore cannot be made compulsory under the constitutional principle that there shall be no established religion, I'd interpret that as legal classification of the flag as an idol and the pledge therefore idolatry. In which case why are any Christians, Jews or Moslems still doing it or encouraging children in their care to do so?
According wikipedia's summation of the SCOTUS ruling West Virginia State Board Of Education Vs. Barnette, the majority held that compulsory recital of the Pledge was a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, presumably because it compels speech. It doesn't mention the Establishment Clause.
Personally, I'd say that since "under God" wasn't in the Pledge at the time of Barnette, the recital itself was not a religious act. Though, of course, from the JWs' perspective, being forced to say it was a violation of their religious rules.
The Bible itself is small and red with the CR cypher on it - to be frank it's still got the plastic wrap on as I'm not using it as a reading Bible so I'm not sure if it has a photo of the coronation chair in.
According to the OUP's website, there is a photo of the chair in the book.
Thanks for the personal perspective. One thing...
It's clearly designed to be a souvenir rather than something you'd actually read much because it's too small to read comfortably at home, and too large to carry around. The Bible I actually read is a NRSV paperback.
Is the claim that it's not designed for reading intended to rescue the bible from allegations of idolatry?
If the law has acknowledged that pledging yourself to a flag, or, for that matter to something that symbolises the state, is a religious act and therefore cannot be made compulsory under the constitutional principle that there shall be no established religion, . . .
As @stetson said, and as I said in my post above, that’s not what the courts have said. I’m not aware of any case that says reciting the pledge is a religious act. The Jehovah’s Witnesses who brought the lawsuit that ended up at the Supreme Court as West Virginia State Board Of Education v. Barnette argued that the law requiring recitation of the pledge violated their free speech rights—compelled speech is generally prohibited under the Free Speech Clause—as well as their free exercise of religion rights, as the law required them to do something that was against the teachings of their religion. There was, as best I recall, no suggestion that the law requiring that schoolchildren recite the pledge violated the Establishment Clause.
It's clearly designed to be a souvenir rather than something you'd actually read much because it's too small to read comfortably at home, and too large to carry around. The Bible I actually read is a NRSV paperback.
Is the claim that it's not designed for reading intended to rescue the bible from allegations of idolatry?
I don't know to be honest. I do think there's a difference between an apparently Christian object that's designed as a souvenir and a Christian object designed for worship. Clearly there's some cross over (pun not intended).
I'm seeing this in the same sense that some people would probably use a cross pendant as an item of jewellery and some people as a marker of religion. This particular Bible is in the pendant category as far as I personally am concerned, and therefore I don't see it as an idol, though tbh I'd never given it a moment's thought until right now so I'm not sure if my argument holds up.
I think with cross pendants the fact that the shape also has religious significance is not treated by the wearer as important. With a Trump Bible I would assume that the religious significance is important. Part of the apparent problem is the suspicion that the religious significance is felt to be that the owner is the sort of person who supports Trump.
when not just looking stuff up online the bible I use most often is the Collins Masonic one - it was presented to me when I joined (I'm not actually on the square these days but only because I moved away from my mother lodge).
Aside from the pages for recording births, marriages, deaths, etc - which we do use - it's a straightforward KJV with an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt. Genuinely, it's interesting. But it has no bearing on the content of the bible or my interpretation of it. Essentially, that's the one I use because that's the one I've got.
Many American hotel rooms have Gideon Bibles, and I have been in one that also had the Book of Mormon.
The only thing distinctive about Gideon Bibles, though, is they were donated by the Gideons and usually have their logo.
And yes, the Marriotts, who started Marriott hotels, were LDS, so the Book of Mormon can typically be found in Marriott hotels, and maybe other hotels owned by Marriott International.
...an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible, and background on what that means for the other stuff that isn’t (systems of measurement and the like). When I first got it I was genuinely impressed that it’s not whacko proof texting, it’s an interesting excursion on ‘where this phrase in masonry has come from’ for example.
It’s definitely esoteric, but like I said it has no impact on my understanding of Genesis to Revelation.
...an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible..
But then, why was the essay focused on ancient Egypt, if it was demonstrating Masonry's allusions to the Bible as a whole?
Sorry, you not trying to give you the third degree(you see what I did there), just curious since ancient Egypt and its culture plays a relatively small role in the Bible, outside of the stories of Moses and the infancy of Jesus.
...an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible..
But then, why was the essay focused on ancient Egypt, if it was demonstrating Masonry's allusions to the Bible as a whole?
Sorry, you not trying to give you the third degree(you see what I did there), just curious since ancient Egypt and its culture plays a relatively small role in the Bible, outside of the stories of Moses and the infancy of Jesus.
I wouldn’t say Egypt plays a relatively small role in the Bible. Egypt is mentioned over 700 times just in the Hebrew Scriptures. (The Ten Commandments begin “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.”) Egypt is central to the story of the Exodus and the Passover, which in turn is central to Israel’s self-understanding, to Jesus’s self-understanding and to the NT writers’ understanding of Jesus.
...an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible..
But then, why was the essay focused on ancient Egypt, if it was demonstrating Masonry's allusions to the Bible as a whole?
Sorry, you not trying to give you the third degree(you see what I did there), just curious since ancient Egypt and its culture plays a relatively small role in the Bible, outside of the stories of Moses and the infancy of Jesus.
I wouldn’t say Egypt plays a relatively small role in the Bible. Egypt is mentioned over 700 times just in the Hebrew Scriptures. (The Ten Commandments begin “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.”) Egypt is central to the story of the Exodus and the Passover, which in turn is central to Israel’s self-understanding, to Jesus’s self-understanding and to the NT writers’ understanding of Jesus.
Right. But I was thinking in terms of the details provided about the life and culture of the Egyptians, which I'm assuming is what the essay in the Masonic bible is referencing. I'm not aware that there's a lot of that, but I'm open to correction.
Just as they got their Enlightenment 'Bill of Rights' stuff from us. And almost everything else for that matter.
The "Enlightenment "Bill of Rights" stuff was fine. Your far worse political export was burkeanism, the intellectual ancestor of Miss Palin's "We grow good people in small towns."
Apart from jazz. 😉
In the movie La-La Land, the jazz-loving protagonist explains the roots of the genre as a bunch of immigrants sitting around a New Orleans flop-house who didn't share a common language and could only communicate through music.
Someone upthread a long time ago said they doubted any Shipmates would have a Coronation Bible. Well I do - I bought it as a souvenir of the event. The Bible itself is small and red with the CR cypher on it - to be frank it's still got the plastic wrap on as I'm not using it as a reading Bible so I'm not sure if it has a photo of the coronation chair in. It's clearly designed to be a souvenir rather than something you'd actually read much because it's too small to read comfortably at home, and too large to carry around. The Bible I actually read is a NRSV paperback.
If it’s a souvenir, would that make it qualify as a Gadget for God?
Best ever use of a Gideon Bible was as a decisive prop in the first Mission Impossible movie starring Tom Cruise.
In The Sirens of Titan, it's how Malachi Constant's father makes his fortune, by using the letters of the first chapter of Genesis to guide his investments on Wall Street.
.
It also helped with good Rocky's revival in the Beatles song named after him.
It also helped with good Rocky's revival in the Beatles song named after him.
It took me decades to realize that "Gideon's Bible" in the lyrics was a pun, ie. it refers to someone actually named Gideon who had been in the hotel room before Rocky and left the bible behind.
...an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible..
But then, why was the essay focused on ancient Egypt, if it was demonstrating Masonry's allusions to the Bible as a whole?
Sorry, you not trying to give you the third degree(you see what I did there), just curious since ancient Egypt and its culture plays a relatively small role in the Bible, outside of the stories of Moses and the infancy of Jesus.
I wouldn’t say Egypt plays a relatively small role in the Bible. Egypt is mentioned over 700 times just in the Hebrew Scriptures. (The Ten Commandments begin “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.”) Egypt is central to the story of the Exodus and the Passover, which in turn is central to Israel’s self-understanding, to Jesus’s self-understanding and to the NT writers’ understanding of Jesus.
Right. But I was thinking in terms of the details provided about the life and culture of the Egyptians, which I'm assuming is what the essay in the Masonic bible is referencing. I'm not aware that there's a lot of that, but I'm open to correction.
My fault here, it was a slightly flippant comment that started this as I'd not looked at it properly for ages. There is all the Moses stuff and Egypt as I remembered but obviously much more the essay, having looked in the intervening period since life got in the way mid conversation last night, is as you would expect more ancient Israel/Solomon's temple. That latter being pretty fundamental to masonry.
My fault here, it was a slightly flippant comment that started this as I'd not looked at it properly for ages. There is all the Moses stuff and Egypt as I remembered but obviously much more the essay, having looked in the intervening period since life got in the way mid conversation last night, is as you would expect more ancient Israel/Solomon's temple. That latter being pretty fundamental to masonry.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, stuff on Solomon's Temple etc is what I'd expect to predominate in such an essay.
The one mason I knew well seemed to take the founding myth about Solomon's Temple and Hiram Abif quite literally, even though he didn't otherwise have much engagement with church life.
In "The Seventh Sign", there is a charming scene in which a teenaged rabbinical student and a middle-aged, very pregnant woman check into a sleazy motel simply to be able to look something up in a Gideon Bible. It may not be Tom Cruise, but it's a dandy scene.
Comments
I thought the problem was with the "semi" part rather than the "worship" part. Certainly for me it is religious.
OTOH, in fairness to the Americans, failure to pledge allegiance, while it can lead to legal difficulties for the recusant, doesn't usually end with anyone getting their heads smashed in with a Guiness bottle and their car torched. At least not on peacetime.
I've heard that explanation before, but can it be verified? It seems odd that people would think that underground Communists would refuse to say it, since Communists are hardcore materialists who aren't gonna view the simple recital of the words as causing any harm(*), and would, I think, just go along with the ritual to avoid blowing their cover.
(*) As opposed to Jehovahs Witnesses, who think that merely saying the words will get them physically annihilated by Jehovah forever.
On the US flag malarkey, it's always struck me as odd the apparent devotion many Americans have to this sort of thing when separation of church and state is built into the Constitution.
I've seen old 1950s US movies where Lincoln or Washington or some other Founding Father aren't shown directly as if they are almost too sacred to appear on screen with ethereal and 'religious' sounding music in the background like as if they're one of the Disciples or St Francis of Assissi or something.
Or where words from the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence appear onscreen to the backing of angelic choirs going, 'Ahh...ahh...ahhh' as if they are the Ten Commandments.
There are probably some schmaltzy British equivalents from the same era. Queen Elizabeth I sticking it to those nasty Spanish Papists or Nelson thrashing the French.
All guff.
I can certainly see parallels with British football insignia and hero worship but it's not quite comparing like with like.
The Establishment Clause is under direct assault here in the US, and is in no way safe.
Gramps49 wrote: »
The under God phrase was added in the 50s because it was believed no self respecting communist would say it.
I've heard that explanation before, but can it be verified? It seems odd that people would think that underground Communists would refuse to say it, since Communists are hardcore materialists who aren't gonna view the simple recital of the words as causing any harm(*), and would, I think, just go along with the ritual to avoid blowing their cover.
To which Caissa adds: Wikipaedia citing two sources gives a slightly different take on the question.
W: During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance.[40][41]
It’s very well established (for now, who knows anymore with the current SCOTUS) that no one can be legally required to say the pledge or face legal consequences for not saying it.
I wouldn’t think separation of church and state has anything to do with the flag, at least not generally speaking. I’ve long thought that in American culture, the flag fills the role historically (and theoretically) filled by the monarch in the UK—a symbolic focus of national unity that is (again theoretically) above partisan politics.
At least as far as Lincoln goes, I think you might he reading a bit too much into the portrayals in those films.
There were numerous visual portrayals of Lincoln in movies, including ones where he's the main character, not to mention several iconic scenes in Birth Of A Nation(which is infamously anti-Reconstruction but pro-Union as far as the war is concerned) where he appears. Plus, that talking robot at Disneyland, and that's not even getting into the mass-circulated 5 dollar bill.
So, I'd suggest that maybe those movies you're thinking of were obscuring his image for an atmospheric effect within their specific contexts, rather than being indicative of a quasi-religious taboo.
Not sure about Washington, but he did turn up on an episode of Bewitched in the 60s or 70s, when Samantha conjured him up for some reason.
I tend to think of both Washington and Lincoln as class acts, by the way.
And the original salute was right arm held straight out toward the flag. But that was dropped in the 40s, I think, because it resembled the Nazi salute. Now it is right hand over heart.
But let's just revert to the old Roman pledge to Ceasar and throw a pinch of salt on the Trump altar.
Right. I remember during the 1988 election, when Bush attacked Dukakis for veto-ing a mandatory pledge law, and Dukakis replied by saying he was simply obeying a SCOTUS decision, Bush rejoindered that some other governor had allowed such a law to go forward regardless of the court ruling. So I think I might have had the impression that it was a bit of a gray area in terms of what states try to do, like eg. trying to sneak in religious observance via "moments of silence".
SCOTUS ruled that, under the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment, school children could not be compelled to say the pledge or punished for not saying it in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Well, that's me schooled.
(Thanks!)
Obviously, the first reaction would work to Dukakis' benefit, the latter to Bush's.
Yes, those coins were, but his followers were comparing Trump to Cyrus before that, as a non-Christian who would nonetheless make the US into something that they’d like.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328100836_A_King_Cyrus_President_How_Donald_Trump's_Presidency_Reasserts_Conservative_Christians'_Right_to_Hegemony
It reminds me of some British stuff I've seen from the Victorian era. I don't remember if it was actually a bible, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the mix of religion and pious nationalist imagery.
It seems to me that everyone would ignore this as nonsense if it wasn't being pushed by Trump. To me that is what makes this bad.
It has the crest of George VI stamped on the front cover, and the first page reads:
Message from H.M. The King
To all serving in my forces by sea, or land, or in the air, and indeed, to all my people engaged in the defence of the Realm, I commend the reading of this book. For centuries the Bible has been a wholesome and strengthening influence in our national life, and it behoves us in these momentous days to turn with renewed faith to the Divine source of comfort and inspiration. 15th September 1939
It seems to me that the King's message is focussed on recommending reading the Bible, rather than jingoism. It does bundle in "defence of the Realm" and "reading the Bible" though.
Apart from the King's message, it includes a pronunciation guide, but no maps, illustrations etc.
According wikipedia's summation of the SCOTUS ruling West Virginia State Board Of Education Vs. Barnette, the majority held that compulsory recital of the Pledge was a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, presumably because it compels speech. It doesn't mention the Establishment Clause.
Personally, I'd say that since "under God" wasn't in the Pledge at the time of Barnette, the recital itself was not a religious act. Though, of course, from the JWs' perspective, being forced to say it was a violation of their religious rules.
According to the OUP's website, there is a photo of the chair in the book.
Thanks for the personal perspective. One thing...
Is the claim that it's not designed for reading intended to rescue the bible from allegations of idolatry?
Aside from the pages for recording births, marriages, deaths, etc - which we do use - it's a straightforward KJV with an interesting if not entirely convincing essay at the back about ancient Egypt. Genuinely, it's interesting. But it has no bearing on the content of the bible or my interpretation of it. Essentially, that's the one I use because that's the one I've got.
And yes, the Marriotts, who started Marriott hotels, were LDS, so the Book of Mormon can typically be found in Marriott hotels, and maybe other hotels owned by Marriott International.
Trying to demonstrate, I assume, that freemasonry has its origins in ancient Egypt?
Actually more nuanced than that - it’s more picking up on all the allusions that Freemasonry has made to things in the Bible, and background on what that means for the other stuff that isn’t (systems of measurement and the like). When I first got it I was genuinely impressed that it’s not whacko proof texting, it’s an interesting excursion on ‘where this phrase in masonry has come from’ for example.
It’s definitely esoteric, but like I said it has no impact on my understanding of Genesis to Revelation.
But then, why was the essay focused on ancient Egypt, if it was demonstrating Masonry's allusions to the Bible as a whole?
Sorry, you not trying to give you the third degree(you see what I did there), just curious since ancient Egypt and its culture plays a relatively small role in the Bible, outside of the stories of Moses and the infancy of Jesus.
I disagree. I’d say it’s in the Beatles song Rocky Raccoon on the second disc of their White Album.
I can appreciate that.
Right. But I was thinking in terms of the details provided about the life and culture of the Egyptians, which I'm assuming is what the essay in the Masonic bible is referencing. I'm not aware that there's a lot of that, but I'm open to correction.
Just as they got their Enlightenment 'Bill of Rights' stuff from us. And almost everything else for that matter. Apart from jazz. 😉
The US Revolution (or War of Independence- delete as appropriate), as the English Civil War (War of The Three Kingdoms) Round 2. Discuss.
The US Civil War as Round 3. Discuss.
Hee hee.
I think you've got the date about right. When we had enough ships to do damage..
The "Enlightenment "Bill of Rights" stuff was fine. Your far worse political export was burkeanism, the intellectual ancestor of Miss Palin's "We grow good people in small towns."
In the movie La-La Land, the jazz-loving protagonist explains the roots of the genre as a bunch of immigrants sitting around a New Orleans flop-house who didn't share a common language and could only communicate through music.
If it’s a souvenir, would that make it qualify as a Gadget for God?
In The Sirens of Titan, it's how Malachi Constant's father makes his fortune, by using the letters of the first chapter of Genesis to guide his investments on Wall Street.
.
It also helped with good Rocky's revival in the Beatles song named after him.
It took me decades to realize that "Gideon's Bible" in the lyrics was a pun, ie. it refers to someone actually named Gideon who had been in the hotel room before Rocky and left the bible behind.
My fault here, it was a slightly flippant comment that started this as I'd not looked at it properly for ages. There is all the Moses stuff and Egypt as I remembered but obviously much more the essay, having looked in the intervening period since life got in the way mid conversation last night, is as you would expect more ancient Israel/Solomon's temple. That latter being pretty fundamental to masonry.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, stuff on Solomon's Temple etc is what I'd expect to predominate in such an essay.
The one mason I knew well seemed to take the founding myth about Solomon's Temple and Hiram Abif quite literally, even though he didn't otherwise have much engagement with church life.