"I don't think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child's mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state."
OK, OK, you're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The answer is
[scroll down]
Harry S Truman
Address Before the Attorney General's Conference on Law Enforcement Problems
February 15, 1950
Now, I don't necessarily agree with all this, um, chapter and verse, as it were, but I think it provides a necessary perspective before we all divide us all up into the forces of darkness and Enlightenment.
[HT: WorldTribune-Editor.]
24 comments:
.
My deletion. I wanted to add one more line in my comment. My blood pressure is up.
.
I was in the U.S.Marine Corps during Harry *ss Truman's reign in the White House.
.
His war was a pock on America's face. Regardless of what is said in the media about him today. I lost five close buddies that I grew up with in my home town in that debacle. For what?
.
I don't even like to look at his picture.
.
That's a hell of a perspective, Phil. I think it takes a person to have actually fought to be able to say something like that. Eisenhower said the same stuff about war. In many respects, it is the veterans of war that detest it the most (for obvious reasons).
As Shakespeare put it in Henry V:
"Few die well who's death has been a battle."
Thanks for the post, Pinky.
Give 'em Hell Harry.
I wonder what part of the "proper fundamental moral background" says it's okay to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of completely innocent human beings for the crimes of a fascist state they had no meaningful control over.
Brad, did Phil say that he fought in Korea? I missed that part.
After all, we read the Great Thinkers very carefully around here, eh?
Apparently Truman is as bad or worse than Bush, so we may ignore him too regardless of the context. OK, I'm getting the message.
.
I did NOT go to Korea.
.
It's a long story; but, my experience was very close to the fighting.
.
I don't see how the fact that Truman made the statement makes those of us who believe in both secular education and separation of church and state rethink our position.
I suppose the idea is that Truman is not generally thought of as a religious right-winger, and therefore people who respect him will credit his statement on religion in education.
But that doesn't seem likely!
No, it certainly doesn't, Lori. Impossible, I make it.
I thought Truman's specific claims that the Founding documents were grounded in Judeo-Christian scripture to be the most interesting thing. That a Democratic president in 1950 made such a claim makes others who do so not necessarily correct, but well within the mainstream.
Phil, did you intend to correct Brad's misunderstanding of your military service, or were you going to let it go, like the politicians you previously called "liars" for doing similar things?
.
You are too much for words, Van Dyke.
.
.
To be honest, I don't think it matters if Phil was in Korea or not. What really got me was the fact that he mentioned several friends dying over there. That's nothing but a terrible tragedy.
Did Phil say they were his friends, Brad? He said they were from his hometown. Neither do I grant any moral authority to anyone on questions of the mind, especially those who wave the tragedy flag.
I admit I'm probably too much for your words, Mister Johnson, which I seem to see through too easily. But I've been around the block a few times meself and can see a slow train a-comin'. But you remain interesting as an object lesson in sophistry, so I'll respond to you when it's helpful. Of course you'll understand when I decline to respond.
Sorry about your blood pressure rising when you see a picture of Harry S Truman, but we each have our own problems. I like seeing your picture, BTW: you're a very handsome man, in that Kenny Rogers or Charlton Heston-as-Moses sort of way.
________________________
Ms. Stokes---Lori---thank you for returning to the subject of this post. Although we don't agree on it, we do seem to agree that Harry Truman's conduct of the conflict in Korea has zilch to do with this blog, the Founding principles, or public education.
But you did spur a question in my mind---would even Thomas Jefferson have been OK with our present situation, where in the name of "secularism," our children and grownup citizens have no real knowledge of the Bible?
I fear we get stuck between a rock and a hard place these days---fundamentalism, or no knowledge at all.
Back in Jefferson's day, no one could be considered "educated" without knowing the Bible, even if---as Jefferson did---they could not accept it as divine truth.
See, whenever a secular product of our secular public school system starts arguing the Bible [usually against itself], I'm astounded by their combination of ignorances---bits and pieces they've picked up from hostile secular teachers, and a few minutes here and there channel surfing televangelists.
And as our late colleague Mr. Atkinson showed, fundamentalists---"Christian Nation" types, if you will---can quote the Bible out of context just as well as anyone else.
So, the real irony would be, methinks---that cutting out the Bible from public education encourages all sorts of undesirable things, especially the very Holy Rollerism that Enlightened types so fear, loathe and ridicule. Mr. Atkinson really has no idea about his cluelessness. He thinks he's discovered a suppressed "truth."
The new Illuminati, you might say. Oy.
It's true that many people in the public sector who want to be known primarily as Christians seem to know very little about the Bible! One particular instance is constant references to the Old Testament to condemn different groups, when Jesus made it clear that people who followed him were supposed to completely drop the "old law" and follow only his "new law." A technicality, but one that a supposed Bible-thumper could be caught on.
It's a good question that people with more expertise on the 18th century Founders could answer in a new post: was the Bible considered by the Founders to be an indispensable part of a good education, or just a cultural necessity? It's too hard to speculate on whether they would recommend it now!
.
Tom asked, "Did Phil say they were his friends, Brad?".
.
Three of them were close friends and one from grade school. Your continuation is a desecration. Enough already.
.
Lori Stokes, I think you're hitting the nail squarely on the head.
.
But, not knowing how deeply you are or have been involved with people who spend their days "in God's Word", I wonder if the idea of dialectical Biblicism could remind you of any such scholars. Eventually, they revert to the idea that the latest "word of knowledge" is revealed to them through prayer and "right living".
Just a thought.
Good point, Phil; it's true that many people claim to have the "true" meaning of scripture revealed exclusively to them... sometimes even my old Puritans did the same!
Yours is the desecration, Phil. You left Brad with the false impression you fought in Korea in order to rail on Harry Truman on the completely unrelated subject of the Korean War.
That's two desecrations, actually. And from here on in, if you use similarly unclear language, it's entirely proper for anyone to be cautious about not being fooled again.
But peace. I'll let it go now and hope it doesn't recur.
.
What do you mean that YOU will let it go now and hope it doesn't recur?
.
The entire debacle is the manufacture of your imagination. Other than that YOU point out exactly where I left anyone with a false impression about anything.
.
You have maligned my character and you try to take the high ground. You got a freaking nerve!
said...
.
What do YOU mean that YOU will let it go now and hope it doesn't recur?
.
The entire debacle is the manufacture of your imagination. Other than that YOU point out exactly where I left anyone with a false impression about anything.
.
You have maligned my character and you try to take the high ground. You got a freaking nerve!
Furthermore, what you have manufactured here puts your honesty as a scholar in jeopardy.
Tom, I've been married for 55 years this past May 16th. You don't do that by holding grudges and resentments.
.
I forgive you for your indiscretion.
.
Let bygones be bygones.
.
And I forgive you for yours, Phil. Your hand got caught in the cookie jar, but this doesn't make you a bad person. There isn't a single one of us human beings who hasn't dipped untowardly into the cookie jar---including yours truly---although not all of us are caught. That I read what you write closely is actually a sign of my high regard for you.
Congratulations on the duration of your marriage. A rare and beautiful thing.
I think we understand each other.
.
I see Dan Atkinson's predicament as him being a naive young person caught in the throws of our society's struggle to loose itself of religious bigotry. He has been conscripted to fight on the side of that pre-modernist vestige of superstitious tyranny. He has a tough row ahead of him. Hopefully his restrained self will make it to the surface and he will experience the joys of what liberty is all about.
.
As for Tom Van Dyke's attacks on Atkinson, Dyke has exposed a fatal hamartia here. There is, some place in the Bible, the idea that confession is good for the soul, Tom.
.
How's that for nibbling at the giant's heels?
.
Your sense of humor should be alive and well as long as you got out of the right side of bed this morning, mister Dyke.
.
ho ho ho
.
Lori wrote:
Jesus made it clear that people who followed him were supposed to completely drop the "old law" and follow only his "new law."
I don't know about that. The status of Jewish law within Christianity seems to have been a hotly contested mess of a topic from day one. Dietary restrictions, circumcision, holidays, the Sabbath, etc. were all up in the air. And all you get from Jesus is some equivocal statements about food and a willingness to heal on the Sabbath, that and the Expounding of the Law (kicking off with the notorious claim "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill"). So Christians are sort of stuck looking to the epistles for guidance on these issues, and even the epistles aren't as clear as one might like.
This is only in response only to the original poster Tom. While this country's MORAL judging is heavily influenced by the Jew book, the Bill of Rights is an American interpretation of the Law Of Nations by Emmerich De Vattel. The importance of the Jew book is minimal, although the influence is impressive. I just want to thank the Christians for doing nothing for this country, and the Jews for doing nothing for the Universe. I have come to adjust the perception of My own mind. I recommend You do the same. There is a process in effect and there is no stopping it. There is only respect. I hope You find what you need by looking inside and discover who and what God really is. Thank You for being alive today, I can not give you any promises about tomorrow. I am the future of the Universe and do not need to write a book to remind My Self. Heaven does not wait. Remember, I Love You. That does not help you on Judgement Day.
Post a Comment